View Full Version : No Longer in Shadows, Pentagon’s U.F.O. Unit Will Make Some Findings Public
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/us/politics/pentagon-ufo-harry-reid-navy.html
So UFO’s are real, government officials admit to classified briefing to a Defense Department agency as recently as March about retrievals from “off-world vehicles not made on this earth.”
And, classified briefings on retrievals of unexplained objects to staff members of the Senate Armed Services Committee occurred on Oct. 21, 2019, and to members of the Senate Intelligence Committee two days later.
JFC folks this is huge! :ph34r:
Business_Casual
07-24-20, 14:50
Give it 72 hours and it will be clarified or retracted.
Whiskey_Bravo
07-24-20, 15:32
Yeah I heard Tucker talk about it last night on his show. The Pentagon said screw it, it's 2020 so we might as well release it.
BoringGuy45
07-24-20, 15:35
I'd imagine that it'll be much ado about nothing.
ColtSeavers
07-24-20, 15:46
What a year, and it's only July...
StovePipe_Jammer
07-24-20, 16:31
This is awesome, I had "aliens" on my 2020 Apocalypse Bingo card. Skynet just needs to go live and gain sentience now.
But seriously, big if true. The world would never be the same and our understanding of the universe could go deeper by orders of magnitude. Not only would it be confirmed we aren't alone but it isn't just simple bacteria.
ET’s roadster is real and apparently we have it!
ET’s roadster is real and apparently we have it!
So that’s why Elon Musk was so excited about getting his roadster in orbit. Nice welcoming gift for our new overlords, I mean, friendly advisors. :jester:
The timing of this is suspect.
Sure seems like another distraction to keep people's attention away from other government nonsense.
Information like this isn't just trickled out to the public for our own good. With everything going on, what other government dealings is this information ment to cloak?
It's the NY Times...you can take that story to the bank.
With Pentagon UFO unit in the spotlight, report mentions 'off-world vehicles not made on this earth'
https://www.foxnews.com/science/pentagon-ufo-unit-spotlight-vehicles-earth
In speaking with the New York Times, Senator Reid said he believes the government and the private sector may have retrieved materials from unidentified objects. “After looking into this, I came to the conclusion that there were reports — some were substantive, some not so substantive — that there were actual materials that the government and the private sector had in their possession,” Reid said in the interview.
It's the NY Times...you can take that story to the bank.
Sadly, they hide their high quality, unbiased journalism behind a paywall. My deplorable eyes and slow, backwards conservative mind probably would be incapable of understanding what they were saying anyway.
Sadly, they hide their high quality, unbiased journalism behind a paywall. My deplorable eyes and slow, backwards conservative mind probably would be incapable of understanding what they were saying anyway.
Me too. It's some rarefied air on Mt. Olympus, I mean 620 8th Ave. NY, NY
So I'm not logging in to that page to read it.
But I doubt even a NYT article provided evidence of retrievals of off world vehicles not of this Earth. Yes UFOs are real, but I have doubts about alien space craft of any kind being verifiably documented.
With Pentagon UFO unit in the spotlight, report mentions 'off-world vehicles not made on this earth'
https://www.foxnews.com/science/pentagon-ufo-unit-spotlight-vehicles-earth
In speaking with the New York Times, Senator Reid said he believes the government and the private sector may have retrieved materials from unidentified objects. “After looking into this, I came to the conclusion that there were reports — some were substantive, some not so substantive — that there were actual materials that the government and the private sector had in their possession,” Reid said in the interview.
Key words "he believes" and "may have", also I'm completely uninterested in the conclusions of Senator Reid, he's hardly an expert on...well anything.
So much clickbait.
Remember, some people considered Oumuamua to be an ET probe, and others discussed sending our own probes to collect samples from it. So, by those metrics, and very flexible imagination, rocks from out side our own solar system could qualify as ET vehicles.
They aren’t alien craft. They’re humans from the future, with very strict orders to avoid contact with us. But accidents happen, and they try to get away quickly. Also, being human, some can’t help but break the rules, and loiter in an area long after they’ve been observed.
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/pentagon-found-vehicles-not-made-earth-rubio-hopes-its-alien-not-chinese
I’m very interested in the wording “not made on this earth.” Why not this “planet” ? This implies that the vehicle were made on a different earth, which to me, alludes to an earth of a different time, or a different universe. Like I said, I believe they are us, more specifically scientists doing studies, and travel in and out of different time periods or universes is HIGHLY regulated where/when ever they’re from.
I have shared here my own experience with someone's else's cattle mutilation, and the weirdness of it. I am open minded. However, now it's time for my Aluminum Sombrero and a concept for a fictional novel in the 2020 tradition of weirdness.
First Contact is confirmed, but it's totally bogus to begin the process of a One World Government. The "others" or "ET's" want us to break down borders, change the entire concept of personal freedoms, while Christians and other religions become de-moralized and mass suicides ensue when the new narrative doesn't fit into the centuries old faith based beliefs. The period of chaos continues while those opposed to the unification of humanity are removed from the scene, and a new system of a single currency is established and a single personality emerges to unite the masses worldwide.
Diamondback
07-25-20, 00:02
I have shared here my own experience with someone's else's cattle mutilation, and the weirdness of it. I am open minded. However, now it's time for my Aluminum Sombrero and a concept for a fictional novel in the 2020 tradition of weirdness.
First Contact is confirmed, but it's totally bogus to begin the process of a One World Government. The "others" or "ET's" want us to break down borders, change the entire concept of personal freedoms, while Christians and other religions become de-moralized and mass suicides ensue when the new narrative doesn't fit into the centuries old faith based beliefs. The period of chaos continues while those opposed to the unification of humanity are removed from the scene, and a new system of a single currency is established and a single personality emerges to unite the masses worldwide.
Sounds positively Biblical. A Revelation, even... ;)
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-25-20, 01:14
They aren’t alien craft. They’re humans from the future, with very strict orders to avoid contact with us. But accidents happen, and they try to get away quickly. Also, being human, some can’t help but break the rules, and loiter in an area long after they’ve been observed.
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/pentagon-found-vehicles-not-made-earth-rubio-hopes-its-alien-not-chinese
I’m very interested in the wording “not made on this earth.” Why not this “planet” ? This implies that the vehicle were made on a different earth, which to me, alludes to an earth of a different time, or a different universe. Like I said, I believe they are us, more specifically scientists doing studies, and travel in and out of different time periods or universes is HIGHLY regulated where/when ever they’re from.
If they are time travelers, why can’t they clean up their messes?
They aren’t alien craft. They’re humans from the future, with very strict orders to avoid contact with us. But accidents happen, and they try to get away quickly. Also, being human, some can’t help but break the rules, and loiter in an area long after they’ve been observed.
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/pentagon-found-vehicles-not-made-earth-rubio-hopes-its-alien-not-chinese
I’m very interested in the wording “not made on this earth.” Why not this “planet” ? This implies that the vehicle were made on a different earth, which to me, alludes to an earth of a different time, or a different universe. Like I said, I believe they are us, more specifically scientists doing studies, and travel in and out of different time periods or universes is HIGHLY regulated where/when ever they’re from.
More gross speculation. There is NOTHING proving they are not of this earth, or not of this time on earth. This is nothing more than Marco Rubio HOPING they are something alien and not simply something from China.
So again, where we sit.
We have zero evidence of extra terrestrial visitors, space crafts or artifacts. We also have zero evidence for visitors from the future, time vehicles or artifacts. We have NOTHING.
What we have is CLOWNS.
Harry Reid is a CLOWN who has stated "he believes" we might find something and that the government "may have" compelling evidence of some kind.
Marco Rubio is a CLOWN who is hoping some of the objects might be extra terrestrials and not simply Chinese tech.
But what we do have in abundance is massive clickbait for morons and idiots. Same people who thought they were gonna storm Area 51 and drag out the evidence for everyone to see.
But it will be a giant NOTHING BURGER. People will continue to allude to "secret government projects and scientists speaking under the cover of anonymity. They will describe amazing things that they will declare have to be extra terrestrial in nature without being able to answer 10 scientifically based questions that any real researcher would ask.
I can't believe people can't read key phrases the invalidate everything else a person says. I can't believe people who consider themselves Constitutional experts can't navigate through a journalists game of three card monty.
I Can't Believe I'm Even Having This Discussion.
When you bring me an artifact that is already completely vetted as NOT OF THIS EARTH and nobody in their respective fields can tell you what it is made of, what makes it work or something like that THEN we can BEGIN this discussion.
Time for a snickers steyr. LoL
I haven’t seen any definitive proof either, besides the gimbal/go fast/ etc footage. (Which is not definitive)
I’ve just always thought that strange unexplained technological phenomena would be time experiments.
“If traveling backward through time is possible, why haven’t we already met time travelers from the future? They can visit any period.”
That’s a great question. I believe the answer, and I have ZERO EVIDENCE mind you, is that they have orders NOT to meet with anyone, try to avoid being seen, try to stay stealthy, and gtfo if they confirm they’ve been spotted. Again I have no evidence . . . . . that just seem more plausible to me than aliens from outer space. Look at what technology humanity has created since 1920. That’s a TON of innovation in a small window. I imagine by 2120, it’s possible that we will have a technological singularity and an understanding that the laws of physics can be bent or broken could occur.
But again, I don’t know ANY of this for sure. It’s also entirely plausible that a phony alien narrative could be pushed to get control of the populous. They’re already pushing for cashless, disarmament, surveillance state, driverless cars.
More gross speculation. There is NOTHING proving they are not of this earth, or not of this time on earth. This is nothing more than Marco Rubio HOPING they are something alien and not simply something from China.
So again, where we sit.
We have zero evidence of extra terrestrial visitors, space crafts or artifacts. We also have zero evidence for visitors from the future, time vehicles or artifacts. We have NOTHING.
What we have is CLOWNS.
Harry Reid is a CLOWN who has stated "he believes" we might find something and that the government "may have" compelling evidence of some kind.
Marco Rubio is a CLOWN who is hoping some of the objects might be extra terrestrials and not simply Chinese tech.
But what we do have in abundance is massive clickbait for morons and idiots. Same people who thought they were gonna storm Area 51 and drag out the evidence for everyone to see.
But it will be a giant NOTHING BURGER. People will continue to allude to "secret government projects and scientists speaking under the cover of anonymity. They will describe amazing things that they will declare have to be extra terrestrial in nature without being able to answer 10 scientifically based questions that any real researcher would ask.
I can't believe people can't read key phrases the invalidate everything else a person says. I can't believe people who consider themselves Constitutional experts can't navigate through a journalists game of three card monty.
I Can't Believe I'm Even Having This Discussion.
When you bring me an artifact that is already completely vetted as NOT OF THIS EARTH and nobody in their respective fields can tell you what it is made of, what makes it work or something like that THEN we can BEGIN this discussion.
You need to do your own podcast. I’ll be your first follower.
Time for a snickers steyr. LoL
But again, I don’t know ANY of this for sure. It’s also entirely plausible that a phony alien narrative could be pushed to get control of the populous. They’re already pushing for cashless, disarmament, surveillance state, driverless cars.
At this point I consider this more plausible. To push it to an extreme comic book level, the NY Times will tell us all breathlessly (in a 6 part expose')how we were visited by an advanced vulcan like culture that wanted to help usher us into the greater galactic civilization, and help us develope meaningful space travel, prolong life and cure cancer but as we are lead buy an orange skinned barbarian elevated by rascists and fascists, we are undeserving of the help and weve been left to wither on the vine for a few more millenia.
Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
MountainRaven
07-25-20, 09:19
they have orders NOT to meet with anyone, try to avoid being seen, try to stay stealthy, and gtfo if they confirm they’ve been spotted.
Doesn't matter what the "rules" are: The first thing humans would be to figure out how to use time travel to wage war on each other. And the second thing they'd do would be to figure out how to steal things with it.
And this is all beside the biggest theoretical problem with time travel: Making sure you can get back to `your` "future" and not ending up in another future where maybe time travel hasn't been invented or your mother got an abortion or whatever.
Business_Casual
07-25-20, 09:25
At this point I consider this more plausible. To push it to an extreme comic book level, the NY Times will tell us all breathlessly (in a 6 part expose')how we were visited by an advanced vulcan like culture that wanted to help usher us into the greater galactic civilization, and help us develope meaningful space travel, prolong life and cure cancer but as we are lead buy an orange skinned barbarian elevated by rascists and fascists, we are undeserving of the help and weve been left to wither on the vine for a few more millenia.
Watch the TV show “Colony” as a bit of predictive programming. The show ended too soon, but my theory of the story arc was there are no aliens and man was doing it all. Anyway it is entertaining and there are pretty women in it.
Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
Diamondback
07-25-20, 09:35
Doesn't matter what the "rules" are: The first thing humans would be to figure out how to use time travel to wage war on each other. And the second thing they'd do would be to figure out how to steal things with it.
And this is all beside the biggest theoretical problem with time travel: Making sure you can get back to `your` "future" and not ending up in another future where maybe time travel hasn't been invented or your mother got an abortion or whatever.
Sounds almost like the fundamental premise of the Command & Conquer: Red Alert game franchise. Einstein builds a time machine and whacks Hitler in '24, inadvertently unleashing Stalin on the world; later the Russkies do the same to Einstein and without all th supertech Einstein contributed to that timeline's world Japan runs amok. Skip 2 and 3, the original is the only one that can be taken as serious alternate history rather than campy action-comedy.
Sounds almost like the fundamental premise of the Command & Conquer: Red Alert game franchise.
Or like one of the episodes from Love, Death & Robots on Netflix. Whimsical look at how going back in time to make coulda-woulda-shoulda replays ultimately results in a worse future (usually). Not sure what the theory is called or who came up with it but there is an opinion that whatever world one exists in is the best possible one.
So again, where we sit.
I Can't Believe I'm Even Having This Discussion.
Then leave would you, the only CLOWN I see is you, if you don't want to discuss this topic then leave already... JFC!!!
Yes, We Have UFO Crash Wreckage. With the New York Times chasing crashed saucers and Trump talking on-the-record, Roswell remains the original sin of the UFO cover-up.
https://medium.com/on-the-trail-of-the-saucers/yes-we-have-ufo-crash-wreckage-e1b2b2b03097
The New York Times Running with Fox News?
There’s a rumor buzzing about among UAP activists and researchers that the New York Times has reporters out making calls about actual crash retrievals of unidentified flying objects on American soil. Take a moment and appreciate what this might mean if it turns out to be true. That would mean the nation’s most famous newspaper may be on the verge of stating that we have recovered materials from crashes, and that the technology is not ours (the U.S.) or theirs (China, Russia), and comes from another source. Do the math on that one.
Why in the world would respectable journalists like Ralph Blumenthal and Leslie Kean, working in the bosom of respectability that the New York Times, want to chase that old canard of crashed saucers out in the desert?
For starters, because there’s always been lots of anecdotal evidence and witness testimony from some key people. Only it just hasn’t been the Smoking Wreckage that proof demands. That, plus you’d be so far out on a limb as a journalist that you might never crawl your way back. And that might have been true until just last year.
That’s when Luis Elizondo, who ran the government’s AATIP, Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, said out loud what we knew he was thinking. While talking to Fox’s Tucker Carlson, he said that, yes, the U.S. had the goods, as in actual physical wreckage. Former military intelligence, Elizondo quit the government’s UFO program to live the activist’s life and advocate for new thinking and transparency about this reality.
Dr. Bullseye
07-25-20, 12:00
OP, did you read the words in your original link? http://www.nytimes
This is the New York Times. Do you remember how they vetted George W Bush over and over asking him for proof for Weapons of Mass Destruction? Do you remember those NY Times writers like Judith Miller saying to Bush, just give me one scrap of evidence? Do you remember three and a half years of NYTimes documentation of the Trump-Russia narrative and how they nailed it and exposed it factually for the American people.
Yeah, I don't remember that either. I think I will reserve judgment for legitimate sources and real proof.
This alien thing would get interesting if the world's greatest authorities determined that mankind was seeded by the others from another star system and they have maintained a presence here ever since, including undersea bases. Remember, the 2004 F-14 pilots over the Pacific saw a sub-surface disturbance in the water below, like the "Tic-Tac" was interacting with it.
These world's greatest authorities would basically claim the God of Creation was actually interstellar beings who were our ancestral cousins of sort. This would cause most mainstream religions to go ape shit crazy, demanding answers from their spiritual leaders as to why they have been lied to for centuries. If you want to bring down world wide civilization and rebuild it into something else, destroy people's faith based beliefs. No God - OK then I can kill you because morality is a human thing, not spiritual. This is an example of how this can go.
This alien thing would get interesting if the world's greatest authorities determined that mankind was seeded by the others from another star system and they have maintained a presence here ever since, including undersea bases. Remember, the 2004 F-14 pilots over the Pacific saw a sub-surface disturbance in the water below, like the "Tic-Tac" was interacting with it.
These world's greatest authorities would basically claim the God of Creation was actually interstellar beings who were our ancestral cousins of sort. This would cause most mainstream religions to go ape shit crazy, demanding answers from their spiritual leaders as to why they have been lied to for centuries. If you want to bring down world wide civilization and rebuild it into something else, destroy people's faith based beliefs. No God - OK then I can kill you because morality is a human thing, not spiritual. This is an example of how this can go.
Interesting take on this.
Yes the F-18 vs Tic-Tac video is very compelling and its to me solid proof. The East coast "Gimbal" video is also amazing and just adds to the proof pile.
DOD confirms its real, multiple pilots who saw it with their own eyes, one who maneuvered against it, all freely and openly talking about it with no interference from the authorities.
Their recollection of events is startling to say the least. The imagery backup by eyewitness testimony from the radar operators on the USS Princeton all point to something incredible.
Interesting take on this.
Yes the F-18 vs Tic-Tac video is very compelling and its to me solid proof. The East coast "Gimbal" video is also amazing and just adds to the proof pile.
DOD confirms its real, multiple pilots who saw it with their own eyes, one who maneuvered against it, all freely and openly talking about it with no interference from the authorities.
Their recollection of events is startling to say the least. The imagery backup by eyewitness testimony from the radar operators on the USS Princeton all point to something incredible.
And remember the Tic-Tac dropped from over 30,000 feet to sea level in something like one or two seconds, and the pilots saw something that was just below the surface causing a displacement or disturbance of the water.
I have no idea what is going on, and I am just postulating. This thing could turn out to be the biggest event in the history of mankind, or it could be the biggest hoax ever done to people worldwide. Your guess is as good as mine. I just don't have a good underlying trust of global leaders.
More gross speculation. There is NOTHING proving they are not of this earth, or not of this time on earth. This is nothing more than Marco Rubio HOPING they are something alien and not simply something from China.
So again, where we sit.
We have zero evidence of extra terrestrial visitors, space crafts or artifacts. We also have zero evidence for visitors from the future, time vehicles or artifacts. We have NOTHING.
What we have is CLOWNS.
Harry Reid is a CLOWN who has stated "he believes" we might find something and that the government "may have" compelling evidence of some kind.
Marco Rubio is a CLOWN who is hoping some of the objects might be extra terrestrials and not simply Chinese tech.
But what we do have in abundance is massive clickbait for morons and idiots. Same people who thought they were gonna storm Area 51 and drag out the evidence for everyone to see.
But it will be a giant NOTHING BURGER. People will continue to allude to "secret government projects and scientists speaking under the cover of anonymity. They will describe amazing things that they will declare have to be extra terrestrial in nature without being able to answer 10 scientifically based questions that any real researcher would ask.
I can't believe people can't read key phrases the invalidate everything else a person says. I can't believe people who consider themselves Constitutional experts can't navigate through a journalists game of three card monty.
I Can't Believe I'm Even Having This Discussion.
When you bring me an artifact that is already completely vetted as NOT OF THIS EARTH and nobody in their respective fields can tell you what it is made of, what makes it work or something like that THEN we can BEGIN this discussion.
I am loath to argue with such strong, but completely wrong statements based on, obviously, no understanding of what is going on. The reason I don't want to argue is because I cannot bring you up to speed in a forum post, or even 100 forum posts. Nothing I write here will convince you, or even persuade you to open your mind to the possibility that you may be uninformed, to put it politely. Most of the public is uniformed about the most important things. That's what they want, that's why our Country is in trouble.
The last time I added to this subject was a couple years ago, the reactions were similar, yet the story continued to move forward. This is all part of the same disclosure that began with the footage of TicTac UAP. Camera footage from south of San Diego and off the East Coast taken by pilots. Now they are jumping ahead to the discovery of engineered and anomalous materials discovered at reported crash sites.
This is not a new story, but now government and political entities are discussing it openly. There is a lot more behind this story. The NYT has pulled back on the entire story for now.
This whole UFO subject is not, any longer, driven by people with over active imaginations as you imply. Yes, there are many kooks surrounding the whole subject, but what is happening now is that the sane adults are finally speaking out in public.
Yes, there is zero evidence that YOU know about. But this info has been talked about for at least a year. However,of knowledge of the existence possible recovered materials has been around since the 80's and nineties. There is a lot more to be revealed....
I personally cannot stand Harry Reid, but in this case he knows a lot, going way back, but he does not want to get out too far over his skis. He is apparently going along confirming reports without being in lead role. I can understand that, he doesn't want to step into the lead, he simply wants to add credibility to the effort a little at a time. He is trying to give Democrat Senators cover. Like I said it is very delicate. I think Reid is actually trying to redeem himself.
This effort started way before Donald Trump. This is what Ufologists call Disclosure, it is a step by step effort to bring the Country/World up to speed on the potential that we have visitors.
The facts cannot be covered up forever, older Government officials, scientists, and Military people are starting to talk before they die. Many of these people are actual witnesses.
Reports of incursions by UAP over and around military installations, ships and aircraft, have been increasing.
I don't know where it will lead to eventually, but it isn't going to be a picnic.
There is a SERIOUS effort to uncover (for the citizens) what has been covered in layer upon layer of secrecy, intelligence community misdirection, and intimidation for decades.
The UAP disclosure effort is being driven by high level Government insiders and recent high level retirees that have had ACTUAL experiences with the phenomena, or with inside Governemnt efforts while part of the Government.
It is also being driven by what is referred to as the Invisible College, an informal but discrete group made up of academics, scientists, interested entrepreneurs and former Government people. This may sound like a crazy story, but I assure you it is not. These people have been under the radar for years,
The coverup and misdirection is still taking place as they are slow walking the release of information due to oaths and NDAs, fear of reprisals, fear of public reaction, possible criminal prosecutions, possible litigation, and individual career destruction. Everyone is scared at the same time they want to tell what they know.
The unwinding of this story has been excruciatingly slow. Members of the Senate and some in Congress have been briefed and they are taking a deliberate approach. Senator Mark Warner and Marco Rubio recently added language to the National Defense Authorization bill telling the DOD to do an assessment of what is known and what is being done regarding UAP. I think this is brave on behalf of Rubio and Warner.
I doubt anyone would have believed that the Obama administration would illegally spy on a Presidential campaign. Try to make Trump look like a Russian collaborator, fabricate evidence, use the fake evidence to further spy on Trump's administration, etc. etc., before it happened. But it happened....
We live in extraordinary times, and I'm here to tell you that Dr. Eric Davis's statements in the Times article are likely more than true. And there is more to drop. Dr. Davis is not simply a government contractor as the times indicated, he was senior scientists in the Government (references to his papers https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric_Davis6).
Closing your mind to a potentially world shaking truth without taking the time to investigate it fully, is folly.
Grand58742
07-25-20, 15:14
This alien thing would get interesting if the world's greatest authorities determined that mankind was seeded by the others from another star system and they have maintained a presence here ever since, including undersea bases. Remember, the 2004 F-14 pilots over the Pacific saw a sub-surface disturbance in the water below, like the "Tic-Tac" was interacting with it.
These world's greatest authorities would basically claim the God of Creation was actually interstellar beings who were our ancestral cousins of sort. This would cause most mainstream religions to go ape shit crazy, demanding answers from their spiritual leaders as to why they have been lied to for centuries. If you want to bring down world wide civilization and rebuild it into something else, destroy people's faith based beliefs. No God - OK then I can kill you because morality is a human thing, not spiritual. This is an example of how this can go.
Not to get into the theological debate as that will go sideways quickly, but what is God if not a higher form of life?
Otherwise, I'm not sure I was aliens checking up on us right now. With the way we are acting, they'd likely glass the planet and start over.
Not to get into the theological debate as that will go sideways quickly, but what is God if not a higher form of life?
Otherwise, I'm not sure I was aliens checking up on us right now. With the way we are acting, they'd likely glass the planet and start over.
Ridley Scott's Prometheus and Alien: Covenant cover this topic. If the Engineers are here to revisit what they've created, get ready for some face hugging redemption.
And remember the Tic-Tac dropped from over 30,000 feet to sea level in something like one or two seconds, and the pilots saw something that was just below the surface causing a displacement or disturbance of the water.
I have no idea what is going on, and I am just postulating. This thing could turn out to be the biggest event in the history of mankind, or it could be the biggest hoax ever done to people worldwide. Your guess is as good as mine. I just don't have a good underlying trust of global leaders.
When you really look at it objectively and stop reading the uninformed or purposely malicious criticism, it doesn't have the signature of a hoax.
Where is the sleazy individual that will profit? Christopher Mellon (Senate Briefer), former United States Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (the third highest intelligence position at The Pentagon) and later for Security and Information Operations (from a very wealthy banking family)? Or maybe the hoaxer is former Senior Government Scientist Astrophysicist Eric Davis PhD? Former Senate Leader Harry Reid?
How many hoaxes does the US Senate Committee on Intelligence or the Pentagon itself fall for?
If the disclosure isn't squashed, it will change the way most people look at life, our world, the universe, and ourselves. Maybe we'll grow the hell up.
Not to get into the theological debate as that will go sideways quickly, but what is God if not a higher form of life?
Otherwise, I'm not sure I was aliens checking up on us right now. With the way we are acting, they'd likely glass the planet and start over.
Since they ultimately control the agenda, that is a risk. But somehow, I feel that they too are guided by a higher power. Its just the feeling I have about this and I've had it for many years.
MountainRaven
07-25-20, 16:06
Not to start a theological debate, but people don’t seem to have a problem worshipping a divinity that was originally a tribal god, a god of one tribe not the god of the universe as the one true God of the universe (imagine if Greeks had settled on Athena as the one true god and you’re in the ballpark). I don’t think being the product of an alien program to seed the galaxy with life or some sort of long-term colonization project would change much there.
Further, the presence or existence of a progenitor alien species or civilization would have no impact on whether there is or is not one true God, whether or not Jesus died for our sins, Buddha achieved nirvana, Moses received the Ten Commandments from God on Mount Sinai, &c. Unless it’s revealed that these events were the result of contact with one or more alien species/civilizations.
And I don’t think anyone can accuse religious institutions of lying about the basis of their faith, even if those faiths are built upon interactions with extraterrestrial visitors (proving it was one way or the other would be impossible, even if we have said visitors communicating as much to the entire world, and it would probably take a few generations before we’d be reasonably able to accept evidence as being trustworthy). Not saying it wouldn’t happen, but I don’t think it would be reasonable. Maybe if it turned out that one of these religions had ongoing contact with a known alien species/civilization....
I am loath to argue with such strong, but completely wrong statements based on, obviously, no understanding of what is going on. The reason I don't want to argue is because I cannot bring you up to speed in a forum post, or even 100 forum posts. Nothing I write here will convince you, or even persuade you to open your mind to the possibility that you may be uninformed, to put it politely. Most of the public is uniformed about the most important things. That's what they want, that's why our Country is in trouble.
The last time I added to this subject was a couple years ago, the reactions were similar, yet the story continued to move forward. This is all part of the same disclosure that began with the footage of TicTac UAP. Camera footage from south of San Diego and off the East Coast taken by pilots. Now they are jumping ahead to the discovery of engineered and anomalous materials discovered at reported crash sites.
This is not a new story, but now government and political entities are discussing it openly. There is a lot more behind this story. The NYT has pulled back on the entire story for now.
This whole UFO subject is not, any longer, driven by people with over active imaginations as you imply. Yes, there are many kooks surrounding the whole subject, but what is happening now is that the sane adults are finally speaking out in public.
Yes, there is zero evidence that YOU know about. But this info has been talked about for at least a year. However,of knowledge of the existence possible recovered materials has been around since the 80's and nineties. There is a lot more to be revealed....
I personally cannot stand Harry Reid, but in this case he knows a lot, going way back, but he does not want to get out too far over his skis. He is apparently going along confirming reports without being in lead role. I can understand that, he doesn't want to step into the lead, he simply wants to add credibility to the effort a little at a time. He is trying to give Democrat Senators cover. Like I said it is very delicate. I think Reid is actually trying to redeem himself.
This effort started way before Donald Trump. This is what Ufologists call Disclosure, it is a step by step effort to bring the Country/World up to speed on the potential that we have visitors.
The facts cannot be covered up forever, older Government officials, scientists, and Military people are starting to talk before they die. Many of these people are actual witnesses.
Reports of incursions by UAP over and around military installations, ships and aircraft, have been increasing.
I don't know where it will lead to eventually, but it isn't going to be a picnic.
There is a SERIOUS effort to uncover (for the citizens) what has been covered in layer upon layer of secrecy, intelligence community misdirection, and intimidation for decades.
The UAP disclosure effort is being driven by high level Government insiders and recent high level retirees that have had ACTUAL experiences with the phenomena, or with inside Governemnt efforts while part of the Government.
It is also being driven by what is referred to as the Invisible College, an informal but discrete group made up of academics, scientists, interested entrepreneurs and former Government people. This may sound like a crazy story, but I assure you it is not. These people have been under the radar for years,
The coverup and misdirection is still taking place as they are slow walking the release of information due to oaths and NDAs, fear of reprisals, fear of public reaction, possible criminal prosecutions, possible litigation, and individual career destruction. Everyone is scared at the same time they want to tell what they know.
The unwinding of this story has been excruciatingly slow. Members of the Senate and some in Congress have been briefed and they are taking a deliberate approach. Senator Mark Warner and Marco Rubio recently added language to the National Defense Authorization bill telling the DOD to do an assessment of what is known and what is being done regarding UAP. I think this is brave on behalf of Rubio and Warner.
I doubt anyone would have believed that the Obama administration would illegally spy on a Presidential campaign. Try to make Trump look like a Russian collaborator, fabricate evidence, use the fake evidence to further spy on Trump's administration, etc. etc., before it happened. But it happened....
We live in extraordinary times, and I'm here to tell you that Dr. Eric Davis's statements in the Times article are likely more than true. And there is more to drop. Dr. Davis is not simply a government contractor as the times indicated, he was senior scientists in the Government (references to his papers https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric_Davis6).
Closing your mind to a potentially world shaking truth without taking the time to investigate it fully, is folly.
You say all of this with such certainty.
Since they ultimately control the agenda, that is a risk. But somehow, I feel that they too are guided by a higher power. Its just the feeling I have about this and I've had it for many years.
I consider myself a person of faith, have studied the Bible, and have committed large portions of it to memory. I have a knack for such things. For me, if there is extraterrestrial life around other stars, and they have visited here, been involved with life here from the beginning, I would want to communicate with them to compare notes. It would be interesting to get a perspective from beings who have managed to overcome space/time. For me, it doesn't affect my knowledge of a Supreme Being, but just opens another door for gaining more knowledge.
It could be that we are so inferior that we could be considered a lesser form of life, and either has value to them or not.
Time for a snickers steyr. LoL
"Could be" news annoys me more than "fake news."
As far as retrograde time travel, I tend to think time is inviolate, so if you go back in time you create an alternate time line. This satisfies the Grandfather paradox. So you aren't really changing time, you are creating different time and this is also why "we" wouldn't necessarily experience travelers.
If there was a single time line, their very presence would change things. If you think Spanish conquistadors arriving in the "new world" and breathing exotic germs into the population changed history forever, wait until humans from 20,000 years into the future arrive to breath among us.
Then leave would you, the only CLOWN I see is you, if you don't want to discuss this topic then leave already... JFC!!!
I wonder if these UFOs aren't actually piloted by the original gods like Thor and Apollo. I bet that is what is actually happening. And now we have actual evidence. Jesus was probably an alien and that is how he walked on water and used alien super powers to part the red sea.
It's all makes PERFECT SENSE now.
I am loath to argue with such strong, but completely wrong statements based on, obviously, no understanding of what is going on. The reason I don't want to argue is because I cannot bring you up to speed in a forum post, or even 100 forum posts. Nothing I write here will convince you, or even persuade you to open your mind to the possibility that you may be uninformed, to put it politely. Most of the public is uniformed about the most important things. That's what they want, that's why our Country is in trouble.
Closing your mind to a potentially world shaking truth without taking the time to investigate it fully, is folly.
So I find it mathematically unlikely that we are the only intelligent life in the universe, or even the first. I think life happens everywhere the conditions exist to permit it. I think intelligent life occurs when an environment permits and drives it.
But with that as a "seems most plausible" scenario, I have yet to see anything that I am ready to accept as EVIDENCE that they have been here or regularly visit.
I see a lot of "we think", "we hope", "we believe" but NOTHING more than speculation and assumption. Wording is important.
For example, "It is POSSIBLE" that all life originated from Mars and was introduced to the Earth which eventually evolved single cell organisms." So while that statement is a valid statement (because you can't disprove a negative), there is nothing in that statement that actually VALIDATES the statement.
Words, they mean things.
. If you think Spanish conquistadors arriving in the "new world" and breathing exotic germs into the population changed history forever, wait until humans from 20,000 years into the future arrive to breath among us.
Yeah I hear you. What if one of them had a mild cold and made a quick pit stop near Wuhan this past fall. LoL. alright now I’m being an ass
Seriously tho, I understand your frustration with “could be”. A zillion things “could be”, let’s be more exacting with our thoughts and discussions. I was just sharing my long-held belief that what we think are space aliens are humans.
And actually now that I’m thinking about it, it makes sense from a tech perspective too: these craft that we’ve been observing are all different in capability, design, appearance. What does that sound like to you? To me, look at the Model T Ford, and the McLaren 720S. They are both automobiles, one is pretty much 1st gen and the other is latest gen. A McLaren is not even a fair comparison against the capability of a Model T, yet they’re both capable of making horsepower and carrying passengers down the road . . . .
If these craft slip in and out of time wherever they want, then the 1st gen ones could appear here, and the 204th gen ones could appear here, back to back. And they’d have very different appearance and fly in very different ways.
Yeah I hear you. What if one of them had a mild cold and made a quick pit stop near Wuhan this past fall. LoL. alright now I’m being an ass
Seriously tho, I understand your frustration with “could be”. A zillion things “could be”, let’s be more exacting with our thoughts and discussions. I was just sharing my long-held belief that what we think are space aliens are humans.
And actually now that I’m thinking about it, it makes sense from a tech perspective too: these craft that we’ve been observing are all different in capability, design, appearance. What does that sound like to you? To me, look at the Model T Ford, and the McLaren 720S. They are both automobiles, one is pretty much 1st gen and the other is latest gen. A McLaren is not even a fair comparison against the capability of a Model T, yet they’re both capable of making horsepower and carrying passengers down the road . . . .
If these craft slip in and out of time wherever they want, then the 1st gen ones could appear here, and the 204th gen ones could appear here, back to back. And they’d have very different appearance and fly in very different ways.
Since this discussion is including Space/Time and maybe the possibility of time travel, interdimensional stuff, let me remind you of one tidbit of scripture. We are told in the Bible that God can see Past, Present and Future in an instant - all at the same time. Doesn't this hint at a multi-dimensional being or one that can cross multi-universes?
Since this discussion is including Space/Time and maybe the possibility of time travel, interdimensional stuff, let me remind you of one tidbit of scripture. We are told in the Bible that God can see Past, Present and Future in an instant - all at the same time. Doesn't this hint at a multi-dimensional being or one that can cross multi-universes?
Aliens don't hold us morally accountable, so the idea they exist seems less threatening.....or something.
Business_Casual
07-25-20, 21:07
We are on an uninteresting arm of the Milky Way, so far out we can see it. Why would a being that could solve an unsolvable problem like interstellar travel come here? If there is other life out there, it’s probably more interesting than us.
It just doesn’t make any sense.
Grand58742
07-25-20, 21:13
Ridley Scott's Prometheus and Alien: Covenant cover this topic. If the Engineers are here to revisit what they've created, get ready for some face hugging redemption.
I'm probably one of the only people that's never watched the Aliens series at all. As in none of them... so, I'd love to opine what was mentioned in the flick, but can't because of the lack of knowledge.
Here's the thing, statistically, there is no way we are "alone" in the universe. Low end estimates on the star count in our galaxy is 100 billion. Estimated number of planets in the Milky Way is 100 billion as well. Estimated number of galaxies in the known universe is 100 billion. The universe is 14 billion years old.
Intelligent life only evolved on one planet out of all that?
The Fermi Paradox aside, we are not even cosmically infants when it comes to the timeline of the universe. Have we been visited? We very well could have and never even knew it. Two things. Maybe such visitors came down during a time before we evolved. "Neat, look at the giant lizard looking things... hope they know that big freaking asteroid is about to hit the planet." Maybe such civilizations have no interest in our planet. I always love the idea of "they are scoping us out for our natural resources!" theory some come up with. As if the 100 billion plus planets in the galaxy don't have the resources they happen to need without having to fight for it.
Anyway, second thing is if a civilization did learn how to travel interstellar (or inter-galactic) what would draw them to this place out of 100 billion stellar systems? It's going to take a while to travel through each of them and learn what they can. Our electromagnetic emissions probably haven't drawn much attention either since they've traveled less than a hundred light years so far. So, honestly, nothing that's out of the ordinary in our little corner of the Orion-Cygnus arm of the galaxy that would or should draw attention of an advanced society unless they happened to be close by already.
I do keep an open mind to such things and feel like people can generally be accepting of the "discovery" that we aren't alone in the universe. I think we've been prepping for that for years, conditioning ourselves for the day it eventually comes out. I don't see the mass religious hysteria breaking loose except in very small and isolated cases. I'd be willing to bet more than a few churches have "contingency plans" for just such a thing.
Grand58742
07-25-20, 21:14
We are on an uninteresting arm of the Milky Way, so far out we can see it. Why would a being that could solve an unsolvable problem like interstellar travel come here? If there is other life out there, it’s probably more interesting than us.
It just doesn’t make any sense.
It appears we are on the same wavelength.
We are on an uninteresting arm of the Milky Way, so far out we can see it. Why would a being that could solve an unsolvable problem like interstellar travel come here? If there is other life out there, it’s probably more interesting than us.
It just doesn’t make any sense.
We have been broadcasting radio waves since the early part of the 20th Century. That means our noises and images have only reached around 120 light years away. Many of the TV Ancient Alien nuts keep bloviating on the Pleiades, aka The Seven Sisters cluster of stars which actually is around 30 in total. They talk about beings from there seeding Earth. They don't point out that this group of stars is over 440 light years away.
Our Milky Way Galaxy is around 100,000 light years across, so our impact has still been pretty small just with our own island of stars. The chances of finding us randomly is pretty small, so perhaps it takes us back again to the concept of a planned engineered human race, or some meddling with DNA if E.T. was the creator.
Business_Casual
07-25-20, 21:49
Here's the thing, statistically, there is no way we are "alone" in the universe. Low end estimates on the star count in our galaxy is 100 billion. Estimated number of planets in the Milky Way is 100 billion as well. Estimated number of galaxies in the known universe is 100 billion. The universe is 14 billion years old.
Why?
There are billions of grains of sand on the beach, so clearly one of them should be a silver dollar?
MountainRaven
07-25-20, 21:58
Since this discussion is including Space/Time and maybe the possibility of time travel, interdimensional stuff, let me remind you of one tidbit of scripture. We are told in the Bible that God can see Past, Present and Future in an instant - all at the same time. Doesn't this hint at a multi-dimensional being or one that can cross multi-universes?
It has long been a thought of mine that, if one could account for every particle in the universe and had a computer powerful enough to crunch it, to run a simulation of the universe knowing all that information, that you would (or should) be able to very, very accurately determine exactly when everything in the universe happens from the Big Bang to the heat death of the universe (and probably beyond). And not just the big things, like when the earth forms, when organic life begins, &c. But when SteyrAUG buys his first transferable MP5, OH58D gets married, &c.
Why?
There are billions of grains of sand on the beach, so clearly one of them should be a silver dollar?
People find silver dollars on the beach all the time.
I think that the more we look, the more it will occur that we're not looking for a silver dollar in the sand, we're looking for life in the beach's sand. And there's all sorts of life in sandy beaches. I think we will eventually find life (albeit not necessarily intelligent or tool-making or "civilized" life) everywhere in our solar system that we can look, because we are finding life pretty much literally everywhere on our own planet, including places we thought it would be impossible for life to exist just a decade or two ago.
Yeah I hear you. What if one of them had a mild cold and made a quick pit stop near Wuhan this past fall. LoL. alright now I’m being an ass
Seriously tho, I understand your frustration with “could be”. A zillion things “could be”, let’s be more exacting with our thoughts and discussions. I was just sharing my long-held belief that what we think are space aliens are humans.
And actually now that I’m thinking about it, it makes sense from a tech perspective too: these craft that we’ve been observing are all different in capability, design, appearance. What does that sound like to you? To me, look at the Model T Ford, and the McLaren 720S. They are both automobiles, one is pretty much 1st gen and the other is latest gen. A McLaren is not even a fair comparison against the capability of a Model T, yet they’re both capable of making horsepower and carrying passengers down the road . . . .
If these craft slip in and out of time wherever they want, then the 1st gen ones could appear here, and the 204th gen ones could appear here, back to back. And they’d have very different appearance and fly in very different ways.
Just so we are same page. I'm fine with "could be" so long as it's presented as "could be." I take issue with "We believe we have found exoplanets that COULD be capable of sustaining life" presented as "We found Earth like planets in the habitable zones around other stars that probably have life forms."
I very much enjoy theoretical sciences, it makes us search. I could listen to Sagan's "musings" about "what might be" for hours because it is predicated on what we expect based upon what we know. But when it is presented as "we know" it is dogma more than science and sometimes it isn't even very good dogma.
To the best of my knowledge neither Harry Reid or Marco Rubio are astrophysicists so their opinions of what they think they might be seeing are about as valuable to me as Diane Feinstein's opinion on practical combative handgun techniques.
We are on an uninteresting arm of the Milky Way, so far out we can see it. Why would a being that could solve an unsolvable problem like interstellar travel come here? If there is other life out there, it’s probably more interesting than us.
It just doesn’t make any sense.
And what if we were visited but it happened to be during the Triassic?
Crow Hunter
07-25-20, 22:12
They found Eezo!
I call dibs on Tali. I don't care what she looks like, her voice just does it for me.
MountainRaven
07-25-20, 22:55
They found Eezo!
I call dibs on Tali. I don't care what she looks like, her voice just does it for me.
She hasn't been born yet, won't be born for quite some time, and is, like, 14 in the first game.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
07-26-20, 07:32
Aliens. Time travelers. All presented as fact. M4C, you never fail to amaze me.
We are on an uninteresting arm of the Milky Way, so far out we can see it. Why would a being that could solve an unsolvable problem like interstellar travel come here? If there is other life out there, it’s probably more interesting than us.
It just doesn’t make any sense.
YES. That is why, if we are confirming these craft are real, and they have capabilities that no country has invented yet, the ONLY explanation is that they are from earth, but a different version of her. They are either unmanned drones, or piloted by people, but they are FROM HERE in my opinion. I don’t see any other explanation as plausible, especially because we know how fast the sciences have made progress in just the past century. We are very close to AI. We have studied dark matter at the LHC. We are probably on the cusp of some wild discoveries in the next century, if we don’t destroy ourselves. (Which evidently we won’t, if my theory is correct that they’re humans)
We have been broadcasting radio waves since the early part of the 20th Century. That means our noises and images have only reached around 120 light years away. Many of the TV Ancient Alien nuts keep bloviating on the Pleiades, aka The Seven Sisters cluster of stars which actually is around 30 in total. They talk about beings from there seeding Earth. They don't point out that this group of stars is over 440 light years away.
Our Milky Way Galaxy is around 100,000 light years across, so our impact has still been pretty small just with our own island of stars. The chances of finding us randomly is pretty small, so perhaps it takes us back again to the concept of a planned engineered human race, or some meddling with DNA if E.T. was the creator.
https://youtu.be/HV7q9VrDgBo
I would have never realized how slow lightspeed is until watching this. Really puts things into perspective: we are isolated as f#ck
Business_Casual
07-26-20, 08:35
People find silver dollars on the beach all the time.
That’s because people leave them there.
Aliens. Time travelers. All presented as fact. M4C, you never fail to amaze me.
I don't know if any of this is being presented as fact, but as hypothesis. It seems the more things we learn, the more questions we have. Throwing out a series of "what-if" questions is part of the learning experience. Think outside the box, look at the alternatives. This is how humans have progressed over the centuries.
Living at over a mile up in altitude gives me some pretty clear, cloudless nights especially during the Winter, Spring and Fall. Summer more cloudy with monsoon rains. One of my science electives in college was Astronomy, despite the fact one of my undergraduate degrees is in Archaeology - long story. These clear nights it is so nice to sit in a chair outside and look at the stars. In fact on a moonless night clear night, you can walk around by star light it is so bright. Picking out a Red Giant or Blue Dwarf star and trying to identify what they are and how far away they are. Each night you are looking back in time at some celestial object hundreds of light years away.
Grand58742
07-26-20, 10:54
Why?
There are billions of grains of sand on the beach, so clearly one of them should be a silver dollar?
No, there are trillions of grains of sand in the world. And the chances of two or more of them having identical properties including shape is extremely probable. Same goes with planets that can harbor life as we know it. The statistical odds of this being the only planet in the universe that had the conditions for life to evolve is not possible among the billion-trillion stars in the known observable universe. In our galaxy alone, G class stars like our sun number 7.5 billion on the low end, 30.4 billion on the high end depending on the star count of the Milky Way.
That number jumps even more with K class stars at 12.1 billion on the low end, 48 billion on the high end.
Are your chances of finding two identical pieces of sand 1 in 78 billion? If we use our own solar system as a guide, we know water should be extremely plentiful in the galaxy, a multitude of planets have been discovered in the last decade orbiting in the "habitable zone" of G and K class stars (considered the best candidates for life evolving) and there are very likely solid planets in that zone.
Of course, that's human arrogance saying all life would have to be compatible with evolving around a G or K class star and requiring water and the "right" conditions to thrive. Even if we were "genetically engineered" by an alien species, we still have a minimum of 7.5 billion other stars out there in our galaxy alone with the chance to "grow" life.
Why?
There are billions of grains of sand on the beach, so clearly one of them should be a silver dollar?
Well, in short its the math. In two decades, researchers have confirmed the existence of more than 4,000 planets in our galaxy, a finding that suggests the cosmos packed with planets. Based on rate of discovery with known values of galaxies at around 2 trillion galaxies, each packed with millions of stars. Estimates place the numbers of planets waiting to be discovered at 100 quintillion. That's a one with 20 zeros...
Scientists think 20 percent of the 250 billion or so stars in the Milky Way harbor rocky worlds temperate enough to allow liquid water. This based on the Goldilocks Zone principal. Thats tens of billions of Goldilocks planets in our neighborhood alone.
SETI has a very logical reason we haven’t found anyone. Space is just too spacious. For all the searching, we haven’t looked much beyond our own neighborhood according to their website.
Retired astronomer Jill Tarter, a 40-year veteran of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence and emeritus chair for research at the SETI Institute, likes to use an analogy: If you imagine all the places where we could look for life and all the ways we could do so as the world’s oceans, we’ve examined just one cup of water.
New study estimates the odds of life and intelligence emerging beyond our planet
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200518162639.htm
To conduct his analysis, Kipping used the chronology of the earliest evidence for life and the evolution of humanity. He asked how often we would expect life and intelligence to re-emerge if Earth's history were to repeat, re-running the clock over and over again.
This method of Bayesian statistical inference -- used to update the probability for a hypothesis as evidence or information becomes available -- states prior beliefs about the system being modeled, which are then combined with data to cast probabilities of outcomes.
his result stems from humanity's relatively late appearance in Earth's habitable window, suggesting that its development was neither an easy nor ensured process. "If we played Earth's history again, the emergence of intelligence is actually somewhat unlikely," he said.
Kipping points out that the odds in the study aren't overwhelming, being quite close to 50:50, and the findings should be treated as no more than a gentle nudge toward a hypothesis.
"The analysis can't provide certainties or guarantees, only statistical probabilities based on what happened here on Earth," Kipping said. "Yet encouragingly, the case for a universe teeming with life emerges as the favored bet. The search for intelligent life in worlds beyond Earth should be by no means discouraged."
That’s because people leave them there.
Hybrid version of panspermia meets quantitave easing? :jester:
Adrenaline_6
07-26-20, 19:42
It doesn't matter how many planets are classified as habitable if the theory of spontaneously making life from organic chemicals is false. The trillions chances of possibility instantly falls to zero.
Business_Casual
07-26-20, 19:48
It doesn't matter how many planets are classified as habitable if the theory of spontaneously making life from organic chemicals is false. The trillions chances of possibility instantly falls to zero.
They always want one free miracle. Big Bang, positive mutations, faster than light travel, etc. Never makes any sense.
It doesn't matter how many planets are classified as habitable if the theory of spontaneously making life from organic chemicals is false. The trillions chances of possibility instantly falls to zero.
I tend to lean towards cosmic seeding. I also believe life happens anywhere conditions support it. Intelligent life is a different matter. Every planet has a habitable life span. How many millions of years was the Earth here and even the most primitive life forms couldn't have existed? In 500 million years the Earth will no longer be capable of supporting most life forms.
So we have to throw that on top of the Drake Equation. And that is a big one. You have a finite planetary life span for any life form to evolve sentience and then develop technology that permits it to escape from their home planet when it is no longer habitable. Another problem is sentience isn't some kind of biological imperative, the dinosaurs were here for how many MILLIONS of years without developing the need to use tools or invent math.
Again, I think it probably does happen, but I don't think they are crossing the galaxy just to snatch folks out of trailer parks.
Harry Reid? You folks are basing your hopes on a proven liar who will say anything to get what he wants? Pfffft. This is a big nothing burger as someone I abhor likes to say.
Diamondback
07-26-20, 21:23
I tend to lean towards cosmic seeding. I also believe life happens anywhere conditions support it. Intelligent life is a different matter. Every planet has a habitable life span. How many millions of years was the Earth here and even the most primitive life forms couldn't have existed? In 500 million years the Earth will no longer be capable of supporting most life forms.
So we have to throw that on top of the Drake Equation. And that is a big one. You have a finite planetary life span for any life form to evolve sentience and then develop technology that permits it to escape from their home planet when it is no longer habitable. Another problem is sentience isn't some kind of biological imperative, the dinosaurs were here for how many MILLIONS of years without developing the need to use tools or invent math.
Again, I think it probably does happen, but I don't think they are crossing the galaxy just to snatch folks out of trailer parks.
Us: 2 million years from Standing Start to now.
Dinosaurs: 140 million years from Standing Start to organic flight, without technology. I'm sure you could teach a Velociraptor how to use simple machines, but "Uplift" on using tech is completely different from independent development of ability to MAKE it.
Us: 2 million years from Standing Start to now.
Dinosaurs: 140 million years from Standing Start to organic flight, without technology. I'm sure you could teach a Velociraptor how to use simple machines, but "Uplift" on using tech is completely different from independent development of ability to MAKE it.
Our early environment demanded changes of us that were not necessary with other species to survive. Our use of tools drove our development and capacity for abstract thought. If there were no lions and tigers and bears, we might have remained pretty simple.
Diamondback
07-27-20, 19:11
Our early environment demanded changes of us that were not necessary with other species to survive. Our use of tools drove our development and capacity for abstract thought. If there were no lions and tigers and bears, we might have remained pretty simple.
Also, us having the deck stacked against us without jaws or claws, and very lacking musculature compared to animals of similar stature, doubly forced us to go All In on Wits + Tools/Tech. You want to go a pure-biological Apex Predator, you end up with something like Tyrannosaurus rex... but even that is very environmentally dependent and won't last without something akin to Mesozoic megafauna to feed it. Our ancestors benefited because when God pushed the Reset Button at K-T, they were small critters that didn't need a lot of food and could burrow into the ground or hide under available cover from the fallout of Chicxulub, but still had to climb the ladder all over again.
Also, us having the deck stacked against us without jaws or claws, and very lacking musculature compared to animals of similar stature, doubly forced us to go All In on Wits + Tools/Tech. You want to go a pure-biological Apex Predator, you end up with something like Tyrannosaurus rex... but even that is very environmentally dependent and won't last without something akin to Mesozoic megafauna to feed it. Our ancestors benefited because when God pushed the Reset Button at K-T, they were small critters that didn't need a lot of food and could burrow into the ground or hide under available cover from the fallout of Chicxulub, but still had to climb the ladder all over again.
We are saying mostly the same thing. And had there been no KT event we might never have existed as T Rex and his cousins would likely have continued to be the dominant predators of the planet. How many species were perfectly adapted millions of years ago and remain essentially unchanged to this day.
Most people assume advanced intelligence is some kind of inevitability given enough time but that simply isn't the case. There are so many factors that have to happen to arrive at sentience and this is why dogs don't write books even though they are particularly intelligent and clever.
There are also a ton of factors that we now believe are necessary for any form of advanced animal life to exist on any planet. Rare Earth is a great book on the subject which throws many more variables into the Drake Equation and I recommend it to anyone with even a passing interest on the topic. But even with all of those likely requirements, the universe is still incredibly vast and it would be hard to grasp that we are the only form of life anywhere that has achieved self awareness.
Galaxywide space and time travel of course are completely different discussions. I think if we ever arrive at a "applicable" understanding of such things we will have discovered we were laughably wrong about most of our previous assumptions.
Adrenaline_6
07-28-20, 15:00
I tend to lean towards cosmic seeding. I also believe life happens anywhere conditions support it. Intelligent life is a different matter. Every planet has a habitable life span. How many millions of years was the Earth here and even the most primitive life forms couldn't have existed? In 500 million years the Earth will no longer be capable of supporting most life forms.
So we have to throw that on top of the Drake Equation. And that is a big one. You have a finite planetary life span for any life form to evolve sentience and then develop technology that permits it to escape from their home planet when it is no longer habitable. Another problem is sentience isn't some kind of biological imperative, the dinosaurs were here for how many MILLIONS of years without developing the need to use tools or invent math.
Again, I think it probably does happen, but I don't think they are crossing the galaxy just to snatch folks out of trailer parks.
I don't buy into that. When environments for the most part have all different ways to kill living things even though it theoretically can support life, life just happening is highly unlikely in my book.
I don't buy into that. When environments for the most part have all different ways to kill living things even though it theoretically can support life, life just happening is highly unlikely in my book.
I always have to remember not to confuse “life” with human life, or even mammalian life.
Life on this planet has been decimated several times. But each and every time it has come back.
Life always finds a way.
Sent from 80ms in the future
The prevailing view, not mine, is that life came about completely by chance...there is no "way" for life to find. Matter and energy dont care if life is or isn't.
When you really look at it objectively and stop reading the uninformed or purposely malicious criticism, it doesn't have the signature of a hoax.
Where is the sleazy individual that will profit? Christopher Mellon (Senate Briefer), former United States Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (the third highest intelligence position at The Pentagon) and later for Security and Information Operations (from a very wealthy banking family)? Or maybe the hoaxer is former Senior Government Scientist Astrophysicist Eric Davis PhD? Former Senate Leader Harry Reid?
How many hoaxes does the US Senate Committee on Intelligence or the Pentagon itself fall for?
If the disclosure isn't squashed, it will change the way most people look at life, our world, the universe, and ourselves. Maybe we'll grow the hell up.
The global elites will use an alien invasion as a means to usher in a one world government and enslave humanity :jester:
The prevailing view, not mine, is that life came about completely by chance...there is no "way" for life to find. Matter and energy dont care if life is or isn't.
I don't think anyone is saying by chance, we just don't have any actual evidence for how the first life form came about regardless of if it happened here or was introduced by an outside source. We understand early life forms, but original source...we don't actually know and we definitely haven't been able to replicate it despite many attempts.
I don't buy into that. When environments for the most part have all different ways to kill living things even though it theoretically can support life, life just happening is highly unlikely in my book.
That's why I said "anywhere conditions support it." I suspect life has started lots of places only to be brought to an abrupt end. Life probably existed on Mars once, I don't think it still does.
And by life I mean microbial life for the most part. Plants and animal forms are much more complicated.
I sorta suspect there is some durable species of microbe that can survive in the mean vacuum of space and is widely dispersed throughout the universe and every time if finds a planet that can sustain it and allow it to replicate, that usually happens.
Of course I have absolutely zero evidence for this idea, it's just what seems likely given what we know right now.
I want to believe.
I am sure we aren’t the only life in the universe, but I don’t think they can or are visiting us. The distances are just to great.
It doesn't matter how many planets are classified as habitable if the theory of spontaneously making life from organic chemicals is false. The trillions chances of possibility instantly falls to zero.
They always want one free miracle. Big Bang, positive mutations, faster than light travel, etc. Never makes any sense.
Sure, some dude with a beard just walked over to the light switch and *click*
Dr. Bullseye
07-28-20, 18:09
I have been holding my breath for years on this one. How much longer should I hold my breath before calling all this BS? Give me a date.
I don't think anyone is saying by chance, we just don't have any actual evidence for how the first life form came about regardless of if it happened here or was introduced by an outside source. We understand early life forms, but original source...we don't actually know and we definitely haven't been able to replicate it despite many attempts.
By chance I mean this: the occurrence and development of events in the absence of any obvious design.
Ultimately without design, chemical evolution must be random and meaningless.
I have been holding my breath for years on this one. How much longer should I hold my breath before calling all this BS? Give me a date.
It's worse than waiting for the Obamagate indictments to come out. LOL
Half the gov is denying riots are happening and some of you think they will actually come out and tell the truth about aliens and ufos :) hahahahaha
You will never know the truth plain and simple so its a mute point
By chance I mean this: the occurrence and development of events in the absence of any obvious design.
Ultimately without design, chemical evolution must be random and meaningless.
Understood and accepted. Although I tend to be unwilling to apply absolutes, even without a clockmaker, evolution isn't automatically random or meaningless, but now we are entering philosophy with that discussion. I believe you can find meaning even in randomness.
Business_Casual
07-28-20, 20:34
Sure, some dude with a beard just walked over to the light switch and *click*
That’s the difference, brother. Our side admits that it took a miracle. :cool:
We don’t pretend that “science” can explain everything.
That’s the difference, brother. Our side admits that it took a miracle. :cool:
We don’t pretend that “science” can explain everything.
Science doesn't pretend it can explain everything.
We understand the big bang, we have absolutely no idea why that singularity was there or where it came from or how long it might have been there. We also understand that such a singularity would predate the observable universe so we can probably never know the answer.
Same thing with the origin of life. We understand the building blocks of life, although we have been completely unable to replicate it. We understand that early simple life forms led to more advanced life forms, but we absolutely also understand we don't have any idea where the first original life form came from or how it came into being.
We are just looking for a better answer than "because magic." But until we find those better answers, everyone is pretty much free to believe as they wish because we sure as shit can't prove they are wrong.
Science doesn't pretend it can explain everything.
We understand the big bang, we have absolutely no idea why that singularity was there or where it came from or how long it might have been there. We also understand that such a singularity would predate the observable universe so we can probably never know the answer.
Same thing with the origin of life. We understand the building blocks of life, although we have been completely unable to replicate it. We understand that early simple life forms led to more advanced life forms, but we absolutely also understand we don't have any idea where the first original life form came from or how it came into being.
We are just looking for a better answer than "because magic." But until we find those better answers, everyone is pretty much free to believe as they wish because we sure as shit can't prove they are wrong.
I think an "infinite mind" is just a little bit weightier than "because magic".
Dr. Bullseye
07-28-20, 21:10
It's worse than waiting for the Obamagate indictments to come out. LOL
You are right. I'll accept punishment now.
That’s the difference, brother. Our side admits that it took a miracle. :cool:
We don’t pretend that “science” can explain everything.
Yeah! Screw the socratic method and trying to find answered. Just trust a fairy tale written by some dudes 5000 years ago having zero evidence to support any of it.
Your side doesn’t want to investigate the science, everything is explained by saying that a fictional character did it because he is all powerful. It’s imposable to debate because no evidence is required if you just say “well, it was magic!”
You do you dude.
I think an "infinite mind" is just a little bit weightier than "because magic".
So where did "infinite mind" come from? How did that originate? Or did it self manifest from nothing like "magic"?
Creators of any kind don't really answer the questions, they simply relocate the questions. If everything needs a creator, who creates the creator? And if the creator can be "without beginning" or otherwise "eternal" than so can the origin of the universe.
But again, at this point we are well beyond any scientific debate because there is zero evidence to examine regarding "what was before the beginning?" I can't even imagine a technology that could examine what existed before a "beginning", so we are firmly into philosophy and religion so everyone should accept that we probably "can't possibly know for sure" and just go with what feels most right for them.
There are reasons some people are religious, there are reasons other people are skeptical. Given that my beliefs in this area have almost no impact at all on your beliefs and vice versa this is probably the one area where it is wasted effort and little to be accomplished.
Even if I could, I wouldn't want to win this argument, I have no desire to change your beliefs. My grandmother died confident she was going to see my grandfather again and live in a wonderful and eternal state of happiness. I wouldn't have tried to take that from her for everything in the world. I just didn't happen to share her beliefs.
So please understand, all of my comments are attempts to explain what I believe, if they come across as dismissive of your beliefs, that isn't my main intention and I probably need to remember to be less flippant. And should new evidence present itself, that is what I like about scientific methods, there shouldn't be any dogma. If there is a grand creator and he wants himself to be known, that should be infinitely easier than combining hydrogen and oxygen molecules.
So where did "infinite mind" come from? How did that originate? Or did it self manifest from nothing like "magic"?
Creators of any kind don't really answer the questions, they simply relocate the questions. If everything needs a creator, who creates the creator? And if the creator can be "without beginning" or otherwise "eternal" than so can the origin of the universe.
But again, at this point we are well beyond any scientific debate because there is zero evidence to examine regarding "what was before the beginning?" I can't even imagine a technology that could examine what existed before a "beginning", so we are firmly into philosophy and religion so everyone should accept that we probably "can't possibly know for sure" and just go with what feels most right for them.
There are reasons some people are religious, there are reasons other people are skeptical. Given that my beliefs in this area have almost no impact at all on your beliefs and vice versa this is probably the one area where it is wasted effort and little to be accomplished.
Even if I could, I wouldn't want to win this argument, I have no desire to change your beliefs. My grandmother died confident she was going to see my grandfather again and live in a wonderful and eternal state of happiness. I wouldn't have tried to take that from her for everything in the world. I just didn't happen to share her beliefs.
So please understand, all of my comments are attempts to explain what I believe, if they come across as dismissive of your beliefs, that isn't my main intention and I probably need to remember to be less flippant. And should new evidence present itself, that is what I like about scientific methods, there shouldn't be any dogma. If there is a grand creator and he wants himself to be known, that should be infinitely easier than combining hydrogen and oxygen molecules.
Let me ask you Steyr...do you hope there is a god, maybe even one as described in the bible? I would ask the other agnostics and atheists the same question.
An infinite mind by definition has no beginning or end...it's infinite in all it's properties.
Let me ask you Steyr...do you hope there is a god, maybe even one as described in the bible? I would ask the other agnostics and atheists the same question.
An infinite mind by definition has no beginning or end...it's infinite in all it's properties.
I would like it all to mean something, I'd love if life didn't simply end at death, but that doesn't require a creator necessarily. A creator would make things interesting, but if it ended up being Yahweh - who is full of human flaws and capable of incredible brutality, I'd be very disappointed and I'd probably prefer to cease to exist than spend eternity glorifying the ego of said deity.
Now if it were some creator from ideas of deism, who didn't necessarily look like us, who put everything in motion and just let it go, I wouldn't mind playing 20 questions with such an entity.
Given the nature of early religions and what very much looks like mans early attempts to explain the world around him and his tendency to answer hard questions with supernatural answers I find the validity of those religions to be unlikely. But as there is no reliable evidence to refute them they remain as valid an answer as any of our other answers.
I don't know that I want there to be a creator or don't want there to be a creator. I'm not really predisposed in either direction quite honestly. In areas where there are huge knowledge gaps I don't just pick my favorite color, I tend to leave them undefined.
aahhh religion discussions.
Hours worth of effort and tempers and insults, only to find that neither side has concrete proof of their beliefs, rendering the whole discussion pointless.
I’d put “how did humans come into existence?” as a nice-to-know, not a need-to-know. Ultimately, I’m here, I gotta survive, find a purpose, and pursue happiness.
aahhh religion discussions.
Hours worth of effort and tempers and insults, only to find that neither side has concrete proof of their beliefs, rendering the whole discussion pointless.
I’d put “how did humans come into existence?” as a nice-to-know, not a need-to-know. Ultimately, I’m here, I gotta survive, find a purpose, and pursue happiness.
Not entirely accurate. One side has at least incomplete data, focus records, physics which can date objects outside of the timeline of fairy tails and so on. The other side has as much evidence for is being real as Frodo, Gandalf, and Orcs. Simply a text, written by man, depicting events for which there is no proof of. But because it was written several millennia ago, people take it as fact.
P2Vaircrewman
07-29-20, 09:36
I lost all of my family by age 40. The idea that I could be reunited with them after death is appealing but I put no faith in it.
aahhh religion discussions.
Hours worth of effort and tempers and insults, only to find that neither side has concrete proof of their beliefs, rendering the whole discussion pointless.
I’d put “how did humans come into existence?” as a nice-to-know, not a need-to-know. Ultimately, I’m here, I gotta survive, find a purpose, and pursue happiness.
And yet nature has selected for religion, since the vast majority of people believe in some god or gods. Nature doing it's thing.
Not entirely accurate. One side has at least incomplete data, focus records, physics which can date objects outside of the timeline of fairy tails and so on. The other side has as much evidence for is being real as Frodo, Gandalf, and Orcs. Simply a text, written by man, depicting events for which there is no proof of. But because it was written several millennia ago, people take it as fact.
You really think men have some sort of real dates for things they say happened in the distance past?
I would like it all to mean something, I'd love if life didn't simply end at death, but that doesn't require a creator necessarily. A creator would make things interesting, but if it ended up being Yahweh - who is full of human flaws and capable of incredible brutality, I'd be very disappointed and I'd probably prefer to cease to exist than spend eternity glorifying the ego of said deity.
Now if it were some creator from ideas of deism, who didn't necessarily look like us, who put everything in motion and just let it go, I wouldn't mind playing 20 questions with such an entity.
Given the nature of early religions and what very much looks like mans early attempts to explain the world around him and his tendency to answer hard questions with supernatural answers I find the validity of those religions to be unlikely. But as there is no reliable evidence to refute them they remain as valid an answer as any of our other answers.
I don't know that I want there to be a creator or don't want there to be a creator. I'm not really predisposed in either direction quite honestly. In areas where there are huge knowledge gaps I don't just pick my favorite color, I tend to leave them undefined.
Then it seems the answer is no, no you don't have that hope. Death is the end, since we can't know beyond it, we can't hope beyond it. Justice is not ultimate, but fleeting. Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, even Hitler get away with their crimes. Morality is an illusion, the fight for liberty a losing proposition, whatever liberty is. And in two generations, it's like we were never there. Dust we are and to the dust we shall return.
You really think men have some sort of real dates for things they say happened in the distance past?
Exact dates no, but time frames yes. We can do math.
There is not a single verifiable statement in the entirety of the old or new testament. It's all taken "on faith".
Even if the fairy tale was real, I don't see how it precludes the existence of intelligent life on other planets other than it's own myopic view that we are unique.
Exact dates no, but time frames yes. We can do math.
There is not a single verifiable statement in the entirety of the old or new testament. It's all taken "on faith".
Even if the fairy tale was real, I don't see how it precludes the existence of intelligent life on other planets other than it's own myopic view that we are unique.
So you think that scientists are all objective, dont have a dislike for religion, always tell the truth,and never begin with false assumptions, and that they get it right 9 times out of 10? What's the mathematical formula for when life began?
So you think that scientists are all objective, dont have a dislike for religion, always tell the truth,and never begin with false assumptions, and that they get it right 9 times out of 10? What's the mathematical formula for when life began?
You’re right folks are totally botching and fabricating the fossil record and Carbon dating data. Dinosaurs are fake news.
As to the present UFO thing if I were remotely concerned about any SAP being discovered I’d be dumping as much disinformation I could into the public domain about aliens because it’s good for business.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So you think that scientists are all objective, dont have a dislike for religion, always tell the truth,and never begin with false assumptions, and that they get it right 9 times out of 10? What's the mathematical formula for when life began?
So you think the guys who wrote those fairy tails didn't have biases, and a limited world view which reflects in the complete lack of knowledge of things outside their immediate area?
The earliest signs of life on Earth are dated to 3.7B years ago based on Carbon dating. The mathematical formula for rate of nuclear decay of C14 is N (t) = N0e kt
What's the mathematical formula for fitting 2 of each of the 8.7B species of animals on a 510 foot boat? Minus the ones that swim, I suppose.
So you think the guys who wrote those fairy tails didn't have biases, and a limited world view which reflects in the complete lack of knowledge of things outside their immediate area?
The earliest signs of life on Earth are dated to 3.7B years ago based on Carbon dating. The mathematical formula for rate of nuclear decay is A = -dN/dt
What's the mathematical formula for fitting 2 of each of the 8.7B species of animals on a 510 foot boat? Minus the ones that swim, I suppose.
Well if you watched Noah with Russell Crowe you’ll know he had help from fallen angel rock monsters.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You’re right folks are totally botching and fabricating the fossil record and Carbon dating data. Dinosaurs are fake news.
As to the present UFO thing if I were remotely concerned about any SAP being discovered I’d be dumping as much disinformation I could into the public domain about aliens because it’s good for business.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Maybe the evidence is just interpreted differently based on different assumptions.
Do you believe all scientists are immune to politics, money, pride, prestige, being the arbiters of what lowly people like me will or will not believe?
So you think the guys who wrote those fairy tails didn't have biases, and a limited world view which reflects in the complete lack of knowledge of things outside their immediate area?
The earliest signs of life on Earth are dated to 3.7B years ago based on Carbon dating. The mathematical formula for rate of nuclear decay of C14 is N (t) = N0e kt
What's the mathematical formula for fitting 2 of each of the 8.7B species of animals on a 510 foot boat? Minus the ones that swim, I suppose.
Carbon dating doesn't date that far back, only to about 50k years according to the assumptions of atheistic scientists.
You didnt answer my question about the formula for the beginning of life.
The bible speaks of kinds not species, so for instance not ever type of canine needed to be on the Ark, but maybe a Male and female wolf pups, all other canines could be derived from them. Young animals take up less space.
So you think the guys who wrote those fairy tails didn't have biases, and a limited world view which reflects in the complete lack of knowledge of things outside their immediate area?
The earliest signs of life on Earth are dated to 3.7B years ago based on Carbon dating. The mathematical formula for rate of nuclear decay of C14 is N (t) = N0e kt
What's the mathematical formula for fitting 2 of each of the 8.7B species of animals on a 510 foot boat? Minus the ones that swim, I suppose.
I forgot to answer your question the bias' of the writers of at least the NT it pretty much applies to the OT too. They were quite aware of much of the ancient world and its differing philosophies. The teaching in the church has always been that these men were in a supernatural way preserved from falsehood and in due bias by God. The wrote of the events as first hand eyewitnesses an d in a matter of fact way. The 12 apostles were either killed or exiled for their faith. Is there 12 like them in history who willingly were martyred for the biggest lie in history knowing it was a lie? Can you find 5 in history who did that?
Adrenaline_6
07-29-20, 14:57
Yeah! Screw the socratic method and trying to find answered. Just trust a fairy tale written by some dudes 5000 years ago having zero evidence to support any of it.
Your side doesn’t want to investigate the science, everything is explained by saying that a fictional character did it because he is all powerful. It’s imposable to debate because no evidence is required if you just say “well, it was magic!”
You do you dude.
The thing is, the theory about life spontaneously erupting from organic chemicals is just as unproven. We haven't come close to explaining any of the complexities that are involved in this theory. Believing in this theory makes you no different. Your "religion" just believes in a different "god". You are totally going on faith.
Life's a Hillary
07-29-20, 15:34
I forgot to answer your question the bias' of the writers of at least the NT it pretty much applies to the OT too. They were quite aware of much of the ancient world and its differing philosophies. The teaching in the church has always been that these men were in a supernatural way preserved from falsehood and in due bias by God. The wrote of the events as first hand eyewitnesses an d in a matter of fact way. The 12 apostles were either killed or exiled for their faith. Is there 12 like them in history who willingly were martyred for the biggest lie in history knowing it was a lie? Can you find 5 in history who did that?
Genuine question because this is something I have always struggled with. Given what you wrote above how do you take into account the flaws of man during the canonization of the Bible? What about the translations? Are those instances simply a fact of man being preserved from falsehood by God? If only certain translations fit that perfection, who is it that gets to make that decision?
I know you can’t actually answer this because it’s an impossible thing to know but how are we to expect the writings of man, that state all men but Jesus are flawed, to come up with a collection of books that are, in fact, perfect? It’s not like we have a direct message from God saying these writings are infallible, we only have man saying those things, man who is said to be flawed.
Carbon dating doesn't date that far back, only to about 50k years according to the assumptions of atheistic scientists.
You didnt answer my question about the formula for the beginning of life.
The bible speaks of kinds not species, so for instance not ever type of canine needed to be on the Ark, but maybe a Male and female wolf pups, all other canines could be derived from them. Young animals take up less space.
Okay, let's say we cut that down by a factor of 100,000, 87,000 species fit on a 510' boat? Really?
I mixed up my tadint techniques, they use Radiometric dating which can go back as much as 100B years. Based on the age of the rock the fossils are found it, the age of the fossil is determined.
I forgot to answer your question the bias' of the writers of at least the NT it pretty much applies to the OT too. They were quite aware of much of the ancient world and its differing philosophies. The teaching in the church has always been that these men were in a supernatural way preserved from falsehood and in due bias by God. The wrote of the events as first hand eyewitnesses an d in a matter of fact way. The 12 apostles were either killed or exiled for their faith. Is there 12 like them in history who willingly were martyred for the biggest lie in history knowing it was a lie? Can you find 5 in history who did that?
The writers of the old testament didn't even know the North American continent existed. They didn't know other planets existed. You are again using an argument from authority. The church said they were special. Done, no evidence needed. Other than the same fairy tale, there is no evidence the apostles themselves existed. There is no evidence of their sacrifice other than the same fairy tail they wrote. Again, an argument from authority doesn't work.
The thing is, the theory about life spontaneously erupting from organic chemicals is just as unproven. We haven't come close to explaining any of the complexities that are involved in this theory. Believing in this theory makes you no different. Your "religion" just believes in a different "god". You are totally going on faith.
There is evidence of one, and no evidence of the other what so ever other than a 5,000 year old story.
How do you even know the Judeo-Christian theory is right? What if Mohamed really was the last prophet? At least we have corroborating evidence of his existence. What if Buda has it right? What if we should be all worshiping Vitzliputzli?
Okay, let's say we cut that down by a factor of 100,000, 87,000 species fit on a 510' boat? Really?
I mixed up my tadint techniques, they use Radiometric dating which can go back as much as 100B years. Based on the age of the rock the fossils are found it, the age of the fossil is determined.
The writers of the old testament didn't even know the North American continent existed. They didn't know other planets existed. You are again using an argument from authority. The church said they were special. Done, no evidence needed. Other than the same fairy tale, there is no evidence the apostles themselves existed. There is no evidence of their sacrifice other than the same fairy tail they wrote. Again, an argument from authority doesn't work.
There is evidence of one, and no evidence of the other what so ever other than a 5,000 year old story.
How do you even know the Judeo-Christian theory is right? What if Mohamed really was the last prophet? At least we have corroborating evidence of his existence. What if Buda has it right? What if we should be all worshiping Vitzliputzli?
Do you believe Plato existed, and why? Please read:https://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources
The church taught it because it's in God's word. It's always an issue of authority. You believe fallible scientists and I believe a Jewish rabbi who changed the world.
Many of the kinds of animals are quite small when young. Even most dinosaurs were small when young. Some kinds could have survived in the oceans.
Radiometric dating isn't particularly accurate, it can vary widely. Scientists have been known to throw out dates that dont jive with their assumptions. On top of that scientists dont have any idea really if the parent gases being measured have been at those quantities throughout the life of that specimen. They again assume certain things about contamination.
Genuine question because this is something I have always struggled with. Given what you wrote above how do you take into account the flaws of man during the canonization of the Bible? What about the translations? Are those instances simply a fact of man being preserved from falsehood by God? If only certain translations fit that perfection, who is it that gets to make that decision?
I know you can’t actually answer this because it’s an impossible thing to know but how are we to expect the writings of man, that state all men but Jesus are flawed, to come up with a collection of books that are, in fact, perfect? It’s not like we have a direct message from God saying these writings are infallible, we only have man saying those things, man who is said to be flawed.
I'll get back to you. Too hard to answer on my phone.
Then it seems the answer is no, no you don't have that hope.
Not completely accurate. I think I'm pretty neutral on the idea (hence agnostic rather than atheist) And awaiting further evidence. It's kind of like the idea of life on other planets, I'm excited about the idea but I don't invest "hope" into it because it makes thing less objective.
Genuine question because this is something I have always struggled with. Given what you wrote above how do you take into account the flaws of man during the canonization of the Bible? What about the translations? Are those instances simply a fact of man being preserved from falsehood by God? If only certain translations fit that perfection, who is it that gets to make that decision?
I know you can’t actually answer this because it’s an impossible thing to know but how are we to expect the writings of man, that state all men but Jesus are flawed, to come up with a collection of books that are, in fact, perfect? It’s not like we have a direct message from God saying these writings are infallible, we only have man saying those things, man who is said to be flawed.
To answer your first question. First of all, if we believe that this omnipotent God actually exists, then if He could preserve His prophets and apostles from error when they were actually writing His words, then we would have to believe He was capable of preserving those writings and delivering them to future generations. Concerning the canon, protestants have generally believed that the canon is set by God the Holy Spirit, not by some set of men claiming authority over the whole church, like the Popes and their magisterium. We look to history in a sense to see what we would consider the faithful and what they recognized and believed to be the canon. We also have some indication from Jesus and the apostles as to the canon of the OT. They never quoted from the apocrypha, but did quote extensively from most all of the other OT books. From the NT we know that the canon of the OT was never in dispute concerning Christ and His followers. The Jews never accepted anything outside of what was considered the OT canon that we have as protestants today. The NT canon was set long before anything like a hierarchy claiming authority ever came along, by a generally united church. So they in ancient times they wouldn't accept things like the Gospel of Thomas. They would have recognized it as not from the apostles or those under the apostles, like Luke or Mark.
Concerning the NT transmission to us and translations. Since there were no printing presses, copies of the originals were made. We don't have those originals, but we do having copies going back quite far. The main point is that in the vast majority of these manuscripts, something like 6,000, they exhibit little to no fundamental deviation from one another. Nothing that would cause a substantial controversy in doctrine. The differences in manuscripts like the Textus Receptus are usually transcribing errors, and minor, the Textus Receptus being in the Byzantine (majority text) tradition. The ancient Jews took transcribing the OT text very seriously. From my understanding the difference between the Dead Sea scrolls (about 100 CE) and the texts 900 later were almost nil. Translations that are worth anything are done by committees of men who take such things seriously, they can help correct one another lest an error in hebrew or greek creep in. I use the KJV, but others like the NKJV and NASB are good in my opinion. There are others, but you must be careful, some are done by one wack job like the Message and aren't worth the paper they are written on. Who decides? You do, I'm not an expert on textual criticism, but I do believe the TR and KJV are faithful but not absolutely perfect. A man must stand before God and give an account, I am no scholar, but I have looked into these things enough that I do believe that the TR and KJV are essentially God's word.
We do have a direct testimony that they are God's word if you believe Jesus is God and that His disciples were true witnesses. The Bible is a book of many parts relating an unbroken story of a coming savior (Gen 3:15) written by over 40 authors over a period of 1500 years. By a people, the Hebrews, that have been despised throughout history, set upon by deranged murderers that wanted to exterminate them, but they still exist after 3500 years. A book that changed the world like no other book ever did.IMO, there is no book like it.
Not completely accurate. I think I'm pretty neutral on the idea (hence agnostic rather than atheist) And awaiting further evidence. It's kind of like the idea of life on other planets, I'm excited about the idea but I don't invest "hope" into it because it makes thing less objective.
But even though you claim agnosticism, isn't it true you live day to day as if there is no god?
Have they announced that alien stuff yet? Dr. Bullseye and I are waiting and we're not getting any younger here! I joke.
But even though you claim agnosticism, isn't it true you live day to day as if there is no god?
I live my life every day as if I don't know. If I was an atheist, I'd be an atheist.
Another important distinction is...god. Are we talking about Yahweh or some grand designer that made everything but we aren't made in it's image and we have no real conception of nor a religion devoted to?
I tend not to believe in Yahweh anymore than I believe in Zeus or Apollo but if you ask the question "where did it all come from and how?", I don't have that answer so I'm pretty neutral on options and don't have a supported opinion.
But if I die and discover that it actually is Yahweh, well then that becomes the new "we know for sure."
There are things I know.
There are things I believe are likely.
And there are things I understand I do not know.
If there is some grand designer, I am his product and this is how my mind works.
MountainRaven
07-29-20, 23:01
If there is some grand designer, I am his product and this is how my mind works.
"God will understand, my lord. And if He doesn't then He is not God and we need not worry."
I live my life every day as if I don't know. If I was an atheist, I'd be an atheist.
Another important distinction is...god. Are we talking about Yahweh or some grand designer that made everything but we aren't made in it's image and we have no real conception of nor a religion devoted to?
I tend not to believe in Yahweh anymore than I believe in Zeus or Apollo but if you ask the question "where did it all come from and how?", I don't have that answer so I'm pretty neutral on options and don't have a supported opinion.
But if I die and discover that it actually is Yahweh, well then that becomes the new "we know for sure."
There are things I know.
There are things I believe are likely.
And there are things I understand I do not know.
If there is some grand designer, I am his product and this is how my mind works.
My point is that even though you might believe that maybe there is a god or maybe not, you live with the emphasis that there really isn't. this supposed god doesn't encroach upon in any real way. You live your life according to your own dictates alone.
You are right about your last statement. Romans 9:19-21 speaks to it:
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
My point is that even though you might believe that maybe there is a god or maybe not, you live with the emphasis that there really isn't. this supposed god doesn't encroach upon in any real way. You live your life according to your own dictates alone.
You are right about your last statement. Romans 9:19-21 speaks to it:
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Sure, in the same way you do not live your life as if there "may not" be a god or there may be a more correct god.
What is your opinion of the millions who lived, killed and died in the service of Zeus over the centuries? They were as confident as you that they were faithfully serving their gods, even if the gods weren't always just.
What if you died to find Yahweh to be just another mythology and the actual creator to be something even more strange and almost indifferent to our particular species than any other life form the resulted from his original creation? Would you feel betrayed or simply accept the new reality?
So you are correct in a sense that I don't live my life according to the laws of any of our many gods that we've declared over the millennia. But if there is a god and he wants me to know something, I'm pretty easy to find, especially for a deity. And if there is a god, he knows what minimum level of evidence I require to acknowledge their existence. For just as you don't take scientific declarations on faith, I don't take religion on faith and I'm not going to live by a code of rules that satisfies some creator who might never have actually existed any more that you are going to serve any other god that other people declare does exist and requires proper worship.
So just as you don't live your life as a proper buddhist, shintoist, hinduist or any of those other things I don't practice judeo / christian beliefs for the same reason. I'm willing to consider deism as I don't have any reason to reject it, but that also doesn't come with a lot of obligation on my part.
Business_Casual
07-30-20, 06:05
Sure, in the same way you do not live your life as if there "may not" be a god or there may be a more correct god.
What is your opinion of the millions who lived, killed and died in the service of Zeus over the centuries? They were as confident as you that they were faithfully serving their gods, even if the gods weren't always just.
What if you died to find Yahweh to be just another mythology and the actual creator to be something even more strange and almost indifferent to our particular species than any other life form the resulted from his original creation? Would you feel betrayed or simply accept the new reality?
So you are correct in a sense that I don't live my life according to the laws of any of our many gods that we've declared over the millennia. But if there is a god and he wants me to know something, I'm pretty easy to find, especially for a deity. And if there is a god, he knows what minimum level of evidence I require to acknowledge their existence. For just as you don't take scientific declarations on faith, I don't take religion on faith and I'm not going to live by a code of rules that satisfies some creator who might never have actually existed any more that you are going to serve any other god that other people declare does exist and requires proper worship.
So just as you don't live your life as a proper buddhist, shintoist, hinduist or any of those other things I don't practice judeo / christian beliefs for the same reason. I'm willing to consider deism as I don't have any reason to reject it, but that also doesn't come with a lot of obligation on my part.
There are plenty of Apologists with far more skill than I or most on this discussion. I don’t think posts on the internet are going to change your mind.
Adrenaline_6
07-30-20, 07:39
There is evidence of one, and no evidence of the other what so ever other than a 5,000 year old story.
How do you even know the Judeo-Christian theory is right? What if Mohamed really was the last prophet? At least we have corroborating evidence of his existence. What if Buda has it right? What if we should be all worshiping Vitzliputzli?
No there isn't. That is why it is a theory still. This is what they theorize could have happened, they have no proof or have even made any advancements on the theory for over 50 years now. It is the same as it was from the get go. The same type of varying arguments you are making about religion, equally applies to your theory but yet you seem to totally disregard religion? That is about as illogical as it gets from a scientific and logic standpoint.
There is evidence of Jesus and the apostles frome other sources and texts then the Bible
There is a lot of science and scientists who can show evidence of things in the Bible
The thing is though, you have to actively seek it out, because it is not mainstream and imho there is more dogma in science then religion these days
And no, I am not going to waist my time laying it all out because it would fall on deaf ears.
As far as dating things....that is an act of faith in its self. There really is no way to verify its accuracy beyond the point that the dating method was discovered. Beyond that point, you have to assume that it stays consistent with what you have observed. I am sure they are accurate enough for maybe hundreds of years, but when you start jumping to millions, well it becomes an act of faith.
I absolutely believe, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that there is a creator, YHWH. I am more then happy to be thought of as a fool by the world for it. I am humbled and thankful that he has revealed himself to me, and that by his grace, he has saved me.
As far as the OP. I dont buy into alien life, but if they are releasing info, there is certainly a motive behind it, the big question is what is their motive?
Sent from my LM-Q720 using Tapatalk
Business_Casual
07-30-20, 08:08
What if Mohamed really was the last prophet?
I can’t let this go - he can’t be, because his philosophy is antithetical to Christ’s.
polydeuces
07-30-20, 08:26
Lets face it: we’re all meat-popsickles, in many yummy flavors, living on a global ice cream farm, about to get licked by a starchild.
Confuchius say: “Sometimes you eat the cow, sometimes you are the steak.”
Life's a Hillary
07-30-20, 08:49
To answer your first question. First of all, if we believe that this omnipotent God actually exists, then if He could preserve His prophets and apostles from error when they were actually writing His words, then we would have to believe He was capable of preserving those writings and delivering them to future generations. Concerning the canon, protestants have generally believed that the canon is set by God the Holy Spirit, not by some set of men claiming authority over the whole church, like the Popes and their magisterium. We look to history in a sense to see what we would consider the faithful and what they recognized and believed to be the canon. We also have some indication from Jesus and the apostles as to the canon of the OT. They never quoted from the apocrypha, but did quote extensively from most all of the other OT books. From the NT we know that the canon of the OT was never in dispute concerning Christ and His followers. The Jews never accepted anything outside of what was considered the OT canon that we have as protestants today. The NT canon was set long before anything like a hierarchy claiming authority ever came along, by a generally united church. So they in ancient times they wouldn't accept things like the Gospel of Thomas. They would have recognized it as not from the apostles or those under the apostles, like Luke or Mark.
Concerning the NT transmission to us and translations. Since there were no printing presses, copies of the originals were made. We don't have those originals, but we do having copies going back quite far. The main point is that in the vast majority of these manuscripts, something like 6,000, they exhibit little to no fundamental deviation from one another. Nothing that would cause a substantial controversy in doctrine. The differences in manuscripts like the Textus Receptus are usually transcribing errors, and minor, the Textus Receptus being in the Byzantine (majority text) tradition. The ancient Jews took transcribing the OT text very seriously. From my understanding the difference between the Dead Sea scrolls (about 100 CE) and the texts 900 later were almost nil. Translations that are worth anything are done by committees of men who take such things seriously, they can help correct one another lest an error in hebrew or greek creep in. I use the KJV, but others like the NKJV and NASB are good in my opinion. There are others, but you must be careful, some are done by one wack job like the Message and aren't worth the paper they are written on. Who decides? You do, I'm not an expert on textual criticism, but I do believe the TR and KJV are faithful but not absolutely perfect. A man must stand before God and give an account, I am no scholar, but I have looked into these things enough that I do believe that the TR and KJV are essentially God's word.
We do have a direct testimony that they are God's word if you believe Jesus is God and that His disciples were true witnesses. The Bible is a book of many parts relating an unbroken story of a coming savior (Gen 3:15) written by over 40 authors over a period of 1500 years. By a people, the Hebrews, that have been despised throughout history, set upon by deranged murderers that wanted to exterminate them, but they still exist after 3500 years. A book that changed the world like no other book ever did.IMO, there is no book like it.
Thanks for taking the time to write that out, very interesting and I appreciate it. Lots to think about in there.
Sure, in the same way you do not live your life as if there "may not" be a god or there may be a more correct god.
What is your opinion of the millions who lived, killed and died in the service of Zeus over the centuries? They were as confident as you that they were faithfully serving their gods, even if the gods weren't always just.
What if you died to find Yahweh to be just another mythology and the actual creator to be something even more strange and almost indifferent to our particular species than any other life form the resulted from his original creation? Would you feel betrayed or simply accept the new reality?
So you are correct in a sense that I don't live my life according to the laws of any of our many gods that we've declared over the millennia. But if there is a god and he wants me to know something, I'm pretty easy to find, especially for a deity. And if there is a god, he knows what minimum level of evidence I require to acknowledge their existence. For just as you don't take scientific declarations on faith, I don't take religion on faith and I'm not going to live by a code of rules that satisfies some creator who might never have actually existed any more that you are going to serve any other god that other people declare does exist and requires proper worship.
So just as you don't live your life as a proper buddhist, shintoist, hinduist or any of those other things I don't practice judeo / christian beliefs for the same reason. I'm willing to consider deism as I don't have any reason to reject it, but that also doesn't come with a lot of obligation on my part.
If the bible is false, then as the Apostle Paul said, I should be considered the most miserable of men, my faith is vain, I'm still in my sins, and am a false witness of God.
There are plenty of Apologists with far more skill than I or most on this discussion. I don’t think posts on the internet are going to change your mind.
Good Apologetics is a joy to read and very helpful, but as a Reformed Christian I realize I don't have any power in and of myself to change even one mind, that's God's business. He may or may not ever use what I say to convert someone.
There are plenty of Apologists with far more skill than I or most on this discussion. I don’t think posts on the internet are going to change your mind.
And I don't think I'm going to change yours or Toms. Not sure I'd even want to. In fact if I had absolute indisputable evidence (obviously I don't) that you guys were all wrong, I'm not sure I'd present it.
It's not something I'd want to take away from somebody without a really, really good reason. See the post regarding my grandmother for my feelings on that matter.
I may not "hope" there is a god, but I sorta wish I did believe it. Life would be far more tolerable if I actually believed I'd see my loved ones again and all the inequities of life would have a final balance.
So really the only thing we are actually doing is explaining why we believe what we believe to each other. Some of us are having a more calm and polite discussion and a few others are taking some things personally as an attack.
• A Fact is verifiable.
• An Opinion is a judgment based on facts.
• A Belief is a conviction based on cultural or personal faith, morality, or values.
Hence my earlier comment about the futility of religious discussions. Neither Atheist nor Religious people have the factual answer to the ultimate question: how did the universe come into being? We are missing that set of facts. Therefore, the opinions are baseless and all we’re left with is beliefs. Which is fine, to each their own. I believe things I can’t prove with facts too. But I hope the uselessness of trying to convince others of beliefs isn’t lost on us.
Anyway, I thought this was about aliens, (or time-travelers, if I had my way. LoL)
• A Fact is verifiable.
• An Opinion is a judgment based on facts.
• A Belief is a conviction based on cultural or personal faith, morality, or values.
Hence my earlier comment about the futility of religious discussions. Neither Atheist nor Religious people have the factual answer to the ultimate question: how did the universe come into being? We are missing that set of facts. Therefore, the opinions are baseless and all we’re left with is beliefs. Which is fine, to each their own. I believe things I can’t prove with facts too. But I hope the uselessness of trying to convince others of beliefs isn’t lost on us.
Anyway, I thought this was about aliens, (or time-travelers, if I had my way. LoL)
OK, how would you go about proving your grandfather existed 50 years ago.
Knowledge: justified true belief.
OK, how would you go about proving you existed 10 years ago
No, thank you. Let’s get this back on Aliens and UFOs
No, thank you. Let’s get this back on Aliens and UFOs
And the devil is in the details. Verifiable...means what and how. We'll never know.
Some facts aren't verifiable through observational science. The reason, they happened in the past. You can't observe the occurrence, you can't do an experiment, there is no math to help, and I'm being generous considering the problems of empiricism. So to prove, for instance, that Julius Caesar existed and did what he did, we might appeal to his possible writings, the writings of contemporaneous witnesses to his life and historians, or even to those of his period who were his enemies. It's history.
Some facts aren't verifiable through observational science. The reason, they happened in the past. You can't observe the occurrence, you can't do an experiment, there is no math to help, and I'm being generous considering the problems of empiricism. So to prove, for instance, that Julius Caesar existed and did what he did, we might appeal to his possible writings, the writings of contemporaneous witnesses to his life and historians, or even to those of his period who were his enemies. It's history.
Correct. Which is why I don’t “know” the Big Bang happened, nor do I “know” the events of Genesis happened.
I believe that something approximating Genesis happened, using my own thinking and logic. How can there be a void of nothing, and then it explodes and creates all matter in the universe? Neither Science nor Faith can prove that one, only theories and beliefs.
Correct. Which is why I don’t “know” the Big Bang happened, nor do I “know” the events of Genesis happened.
I believe that something approximating Genesis happened, using my own thinking and logic. How can there be a void of nothing, and then it explodes and creates all matter in the universe? Neither Science nor Faith can prove that one, only theories and beliefs.
So this is how it works with Christians. The NT is written by eye witnesses, multiple eye witnesses, about a Jewish Rabbi that actually existed who claimed to be God in the flesh,, and who died and rose again on the 3rd day, thus proving He was God...them witnessing this resurrection and later ascension. This all changed these eye witnesses so profoundly that they then were willing to lay down their lives if necessary, and most did, to spread this good news to the world. Also this Jewish Rabbi said Genesis was true. And the world changed. I know you don't believe any of this.
I have to say that my belief seems quite a bit more hopeful for humanity than your belief.
I have to say that my belief seems quite a bit more hopeful for humanity than your belief.
Excuse me? You do not know a thing about me. I do not wish to tell you a thing about me. So you will be ignored. Why don’t you start your own thread where you get to insult everyone, strut around in your elitism, and bloviate about your true, correct, and factual religious dogma? Instead of shitting in a thread about UFOs? At the very least, see yourself out of this thread
Excuse me? You do not know a thing about me. I do not wish to tell you a thing about me. So you will be ignored. Why don’t you start your own thread where you get to insult everyone, strut around in your elitism, and bloviate about your true, correct, and factual religious dogma? Instead of shitting in a thread about UFOs? At the very least, see yourself out of this thread
Dude if what I just said insults you that bad, maybe you should take up something else. I know you're a libertarian, I know you have a disdain for the bible, I know you don't particularly like me, and I know you don't get your facts right. I didn't bring up religion in this thread and I didn't bother to post about all the alien stuff. I started posting like on page 9 or something. Nobody was really posting about aliens after a while and it took a detour, like pretty much every thread does. So what?
Now your world view doesn't sound hopeful to me...doesn't everybody just end up dead and worm food one way or another in yours'. Is that hopeful? by the way I used the words "seems to me", I left room there for rebuttal.
Correct. Which is why I don’t “know” the Big Bang happened, nor do I “know” the events of Genesis happened.
I believe that something approximating Genesis happened, using my own thinking and logic. How can there be a void of nothing, and then it explodes and creates all matter in the universe? Neither Science nor Faith can prove that one, only theories and beliefs.
Do you believe Julius Caesar was real (a fact?) and why?
You make a lot of assumptions about what I think, most of which are wrong. Once again, No, Thank you, I choose not to engage with you. Why don’t you work on humbling yourself a bit before God becomes even more disgusted with you than He already is? Thanks.
BuzzinSATX
07-30-20, 22:10
Carbon dating doesn't date that far back, only to about 50k years according to the assumptions of atheistic scientists.
You didnt answer my question about the formula for the beginning of life.
The bible speaks of kinds not species, so for instance not ever type of canine needed to be on the Ark, but maybe a Male and female wolf pups, all other canines could be derived from them. Young animals take up less space.
TomMcC,
I’m in agreement with your POV and beliefs. Recently watched a very interesting documentary “Is Genesis History?”
https://isgenesishistory.com/
I realize many here will dismiss out of hand, but folks with an open mind should at least watch this very well made documentary.
Couple things stood out to me specifically...
1. Rock formations In the Grand Canyon. I was taught in school that the Grand Canyon was carved out by the Colorado River, but based on the stone formations, that isn’t possible. Amazing when it’s shown.
2. Missing links. Everyone talks about the missing link between monkeys and humans, but where are the links between the other species? They are not in the fossil records...there are families of animals that adapted and evolved (canids, felines, bears, primates, etc.) but not any links between them.
I’m a Christian, but have sometimes wondered about evolution...every scientist is so sure it’s real...but riddle me this...if we “evolved” from all the creatures on this rock, why are we so UNSUITED to live here??? We are the only species that requires clothing and shelter from the elements. We have no real night vision. We have a hard time and will likely die with many foods other creatures thrive on. And our newborn are the weakest freaking creatures going. Even baby birds can live without shelter or clothing...not our babies.
And as far as “carbon dating” goes, it’s not nearly as correct as the public believes...but the earth “has to be” 4 Billion years old in order to make Evolution possible...otherwise, there a zero chance it really happened.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BuzzinSATX
07-30-20, 22:35
No, thank you. Let’s get this back on Aliens and UFOs
WRT Aliens and UFO’s, I believe there are “others” who come here (Earth). Far Too many reports from even back hundreds/thousands of years ago to simply dismiss as crazy folks...
Are they from another place? I think so...but my guess is they are not necessarily from outside our location in this universe, rather they are inter-dimensional beings. What and who they are is certainly an interesting question that I cannot answer.
All my beliefs and opinions. Not really looking to debate...you do you...as some say.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
MountainRaven
07-30-20, 23:02
I’m a Christian, but have sometimes wondered about evolution...every scientist is so sure it’s real...but riddle me this...if we “evolved” from all the creatures on this rock, why are we so UNSUITED to live here??? We are the only species that requires clothing and shelter from the elements. We have no real night vision. We have a hard time and will likely die with many foods other creatures thrive on. And our newborn are the weakest freaking creatures going. Even baby birds can live without shelter or clothing...not our babies.
You're mistaken.
We're crazy adapted to survive here. We're so adapted to survive that we're the only known species to regularly visit the bottom of the ocean and to be found on all the continents and to spend years at the outer reaches of earth's atmosphere, and so far we're the only species we've encountered on another world.
The mistake you've made is believing that because you, as an individual, because other human beings, as individuals, have difficulty surviving alone, that we, as a species, must be poorly adapted. The argument is the same as saying that a worker ant or a worker bee is poorly adapted to survive alone and thus ants and bees are poorly adapted to survive (you think human babies are helpless? Try being a baby bee). The truth is that we are supremely well adapted, because no man is an island.
TomMcC,
I’m in agreement with your POV and beliefs. Recently watched a very interesting documentary “Is Genesis History?”
https://isgenesishistory.com/
I realize many here will dismiss out of hand, but folks with an open mind should at least watch this very well made documentary.
Couple things stood out to me specifically...
1. Rock formations In the Grand Canyon. I was taught in school that the Grand Canyon was carved out by the Colorado River, but based on the stone formations, that isn’t possible. Amazing when it’s shown.
2. Missing links. Everyone talks about the missing link between monkeys and humans, but where are the links between the other species? They are not in the fossil records...there are families of animals that adapted and evolved (canids, felines, bears, primates, etc.) but not any links between them.
I’m a Christian, but have sometimes wondered about evolution...every scientist is so sure it’s real...but riddle me this...if we “evolved” from all the creatures on this rock, why are we so UNSUITED to live here??? We are the only species that requires clothing and shelter from the elements. We have no real night vision. We have a hard time and will likely die with many foods other creatures thrive on. And our newborn are the weakest freaking creatures going. Even baby birds can live without shelter or clothing...not our babies.
And as far as “carbon dating” goes, it’s not nearly as correct as the public believes...but the earth “has to be” 4 Billion years old in order to make Evolution possible...otherwise, there a zero chance it really happened.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks, I'll watch that doc this Sunday after worship.
Evolution is the only theory in science, that I'm aware of, that can not be falsified. Something that all other theories must ultimately bow to in scientific inquiry.
You make a lot of assumptions about what I think, most of which are wrong. Once again, No, Thank you, I choose not to engage with you. Why don’t you work on humbling yourself a bit before God becomes even more disgusted with you than He already is? Thanks.
But then you do engage. God is disgusted with me? Does that really add anything worthwhile?
Well, I have to say the most likely scenario is that anything here or that has visited here was likely here before us. Original inhabitants of this rock. Most sighting occur near water. We know less about what's underneath us in the oceans than we do the space around us.
Seems the most likely scenario to me.
Also, everyone keeps talking about vast distances to travel, but inter dimensional travel would be staying in the same place just shifting between dimensions. It might take a large or small amount of energy to do this, but it's more likely than traversing space from galaxies far away.
Why go from point A to point B when if can make them coexist momentarily?
With all the worlds we have found just sitting right in front of us, on top of us, 90 degrees to us, etc. Why do things have to travel so far? They don't. Think quantum realm.
There is so much going on all around us that is part of reality but we do not have any perception of it without specialized devices to aid us.
A microscope, a particle accelerator, a powerful telescope, a magnifying glass, hallucinogenic substances, etc.
There is no end to what is possible and what may exist out there.
Perception is our enemy. We rely so much on what we see with our eyes and how we literally perceive it (Or cannot perceive at all), when most of the physical elements of our existence and reality we cannot even process or perceive.
We are all just interfacing with this reality, everyone perceives things so differently, things as simple as color are different and specific to our individual perception. Some see blue, some see green some see grey all in the same thing.
It's so hard to break away from the construct of our own minds, what we see with our eyes and how that information is processed to us personally and step outside of it all.
I've experienced some wild shit, enough to know that our brains help us by blocking most of what's going on around us out, all but completely removing us from the totality of our actual existence- we experience a lesser existence and reality, made simple enough to keep us sane-ish, alive and procreating.
The more I learn and the more I ponder- the more I feel that everything is possible, nothing is out of bounds, any and every thing or idea you or anyone else can imagine is not only possible but manifested in a physically "real" form somewhere out there in the aether.
After all, everything we experience is truly just a product of our brain function and "in our heads".
Tell a man who believes in god that you have spoken to god and he thinks you are a mad man.
Tell a man who believes in the Big Bang that you have gone outside of your body, space and time and literally experienced it on a metaphysical level and they believe you're a raving fool.
Every experience is individual and yet we all inhabit a shared experience together, we all know our experience as truth, yet all others question, disbelieve or deny our individual experience and perception as we question, disbelieve or deny all others- based solely on an acceptable or unacceptable perceived relevance and justification of our own self-centric experience.
"That is blue"..."What, that's not blue it is green"...
Perhaps it's both, and everything else all at once.
You're mistaken.
We're crazy adapted to survive here. We're so adapted to survive that we're the only known species to regularly visit the bottom of the ocean and to be found on all the continents and to spend years at the outer reaches of earth's atmosphere, and so far we're the only species we've encountered on another world.
The mistake you've made is believing that because you, as an individual, because other human beings, as individuals, have difficulty surviving alone, that we, as a species, must be poorly adapted. The argument is the same as saying that a worker ant or a worker bee is poorly adapted to survive alone and thus ants and bees are poorly adapted to survive (you think human babies are helpless? Try being a baby bee). The truth is that we are supremely well adapted, because no man is an island.
Your forgetting that we did leave some kind of bacteria on a camera on the moon that was still alive when we returned on a later Apollo mission. But other than that, your overall point is a important one.
Voodoochild
07-31-20, 06:35
People if you can't carry on an a conversation like an adult then don't bother posting in this thread.
BuzzinSATX
07-31-20, 07:02
You're mistaken.
We're crazy adapted to survive here. We're so adapted to survive that we're the only known species to regularly visit the bottom of the ocean and to be found on all the continents and to spend years at the outer reaches of earth's atmosphere, and so far we're the only species we've encountered on another world.
The mistake you've made is believing that because you, as an individual, because other human beings, as individuals, have difficulty surviving alone, that we, as a species, must be poorly adapted. The argument is the same as saying that a worker ant or a worker bee is poorly adapted to survive alone and thus ants and bees are poorly adapted to survive (you think human babies are helpless? Try being a baby bee). The truth is that we are supremely well adapted, because no man is an island.
MountainRaven,
I don’t really agree we are “crazy adapted to survive here”...but I believe we are absolutely excellent at adapting to our surroundings...given the proper tools and materials (we develop) to make environments inhabitable.
No disagreement with you that we as a species can learn to work and live in almost any environment and are only limited by our current resources and technology. But we’ve done this because we had to...not by choice.
We’ve had fire for a little while, “evolutionary timeline speaking”, but we certainly haven’t have had other methods of light for very long...definitely not long enough to cause us to lose our ability to see at night (like almost every other critter on the rock). And that’s considering people’s who lived with evolved tech. Lots of tribes on this rock who missed all the civilized advances should still be able to see at night in dark jungles...yet none of them have “true” night vision.
My point is that almost everyplace on this rock, we need clothing...we need structure...we need tools...we need to prepare most foods...
Yes, we have a huge brain that allows us to compensate, but no other animal we could have evolved from
comes remotely close to us.
And I won’t argue that the human species has “evolved” to a degree within the species based on geography...darker skin people near equator for sun protection , etc.
But no different than bears who evolved characteristics based on where they lived. But both humans and bears are still....humans and bears.
Anyway, I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind...especially if they don’t want to.
But if there are folks who may have an open mind, or want to hear a good “creation” perspective, watch the documentary I mentioned earlier “Is Genesis History?” The science based evidence and arguments in the film are compelling...especially (to me) the geographic evidence.
I used to be an “Old Earth - Young Creation” believer...based on the stuff I was ‘taught’ about geography, like the Grand Canyon.
Not so much anymore.
Anyway...I’m out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why does a thread about aliens turn into a religious discussion? If there is a creator, we must be extremely vain to think ourselves the only sentient beings created in this immeasurably vast universe. If the spark of life just happened, we would have to be incredibly vain to believe it only could happen on Earth.
Of course there are sentient beings outside our solar system. Perhaps they are advanced enough to travel to our world. I just hope they didn't plan on finding affordable 5.56 or 9mm here.
Andy
Or primers..............wait a second, maybe the damn aliens took all the primers.
Adrenaline_6
07-31-20, 09:31
Why does a thread about aliens turn into a religious discussion? If there is a creator, we must be extremely vain to think ourselves the only sentiment beings created in this immeasurably vast universe. If the spark of life just happened, we would have to be incredibly vain to believe it only could happen on Earth.
Of course there are sentiment beings outside our solar system. Perhaps they are advanced enough to travel to our world. I just hope they didn't plan on finding affordable 5.56 or 9mm here.
Andy
I don't think anyone is being vain, more like realistic. Like you mentioned, if there is an all knowing creator, what vain would be is to think we would know what the creator would or wouldn't do and assuming what you think is likely or plausible to be what the creator would think - that is vanity. It would be akin to expecting an amoeba to research and understand quantum physics.
Now if the theory about life spontaneously being made out of organic chemicals is true, then yes, I agree on the fact that if t happened once, why can't it can happen again.
Your statement about of course there are sentient beings outside our solar system relies on the second theory being true, it does not necessarily hold true if the first is.
Why does a thread about aliens turn into a religious discussion? If there is a creator, we must be extremely vain to think ourselves the only sentiment beings created in this immeasurably vast universe. If the spark of life just happened, we would have to be incredibly vain to believe it only could happen on Earth.
Of course there are sentiment beings outside our solar system. Perhaps they are advanced enough to travel to our world. I just hope they didn't plan on finding affordable 5.56 or 9mm here.
Andy
Because somewhere along the way the subject of origins was brought up, origins has to do with religion. People have certain presuppositions about that subject that leads to how they view the idea of possible alien life. If your world view is atheistic (a presupposition) then you are going to interpret "scientific facts" with that assumption. There are so many stars and life happened here through chemical evolution, so then it follows, that of course there are others out there. Then trying to show ourselves to really be humble, we call the idea that we are the only ones "vain". On the other hand, your world view might be based on the bible, so your assumption would be "What does God have to say about life and how it all started and what else does He say about life in general". I don't think I'm vain for believing we're alone, I believe I'm obedient to the word of my Creator. And that obedience is a function of His grace alone.
I don't think anyone is being vain, more like realistic. Like you mentioned, if there is an all knowing creator, what vain would be is to think we would know what the creator would or wouldn't do and assuming what you think is likely or plausible to be what the creator would think - that is vanity. It would be akin to expecting an amoeba to research and understand quantum physics.
Now if the theory about life spontaneously being made out of organic chemicals is true, then yes, I agree on the fact that if t happened once, why can't it can happen again.
Your statement about of course there are sentient beings outside our solar system relies on the second theory being true, it does not necessarily hold true if the first is.
The Bible tells us that God created other sentient beings.
Andy
Do you mean angels?
Yes. I understand that they are entirely different than mankind or any other life forms we know.
Andy
Adrenaline_6
07-31-20, 14:19
Yes. I understand that they are entirely different than mankind or any other life forms we know.
Andy
Yea, that would be totally different then the subject at hand.
Yea, that would be totally different then the subject at hand.
It is the limit of my theological knowledge, but a person could certainly see an Angel as alien without a base of belief to help them understand the experience.
Andy
It is the limit of my theological knowledge, but a person could certainly see an Angel as alien without a base of belief to help them understand the experience.
Andy
That's quite true. There was a thread by Doc Safari some months ago that polled people about their views on what these phenomenon were. One choice being angelic/demon. That's my view.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/us/politics/pentagon-ufo-harry-reid-navy.html
So UFO’s are real, government officials admit to classified briefing to a Defense Department agency as recently as March about retrievals from “off-world vehicles not made on this earth.”
And, classified briefings on retrievals of unexplained objects to staff members of the Senate Armed Services Committee occurred on Oct. 21, 2019, and to members of the Senate Intelligence Committee two days later.
JFC folks this is huge! :ph34r:
While this is a big step forward to the gubment admitting officially that there's something in our airspace the can't explain and it's not us (the US), I don't see an actual admittance of it from the above. The DOD did admit the vids from the planes were legit - which some took as meaning the objects in the vids were legit - but again, stopped well short of admitting to UFOs officially.
I will be very interested to see what it is they let out.
Why?
There are billions of grains of sand on the beach, so clearly one of them should be a silver dollar?
The shear numbers make it so unlikely it's as close to zero as you could ask for. That's why. Even your most conservative scientists are all in agreement on the probability of life on other planets. The real debate is whether that life could and has traveled the distances to visit us, which is a different Q and far fewer scientists on board with that one. All the grains of sand on the planet are but a fraction of the number of stars and planets in our galaxy alone, and there's at least 100 billion more galaxies each with 1-3 hundred billion stars in them, and that's just the observable universe. Add to that all the ingredients for life such a water, carbon, etc are all very common and everywhere we point a telescope, we find new planets. And on and so forth.
so the statement "statistically, there is no way we are alone in the universe" is accurate, but more accurate would be "the statistically likelihood of us being the only life in the universe is as close to zero as it could get" or similar statement.
Of course that assumes that life arriving by natural means is really not a rare or nearly impossible, or an actually impossible thing. If it's an extreme long shot, say 1 chance in 10 to the 60 th power, and we really don't know at all what natural process is involved, and the universe is an extremely inhospitable place, then would it change things concerning the likelihood of alien life existing...I think so.
Of course that assumes that life arriving by natural means is really not a rare or nearly impossible, or an actually impossible thing. If it's an extreme long shot, say 1 chance in 10 to the 60 th power, and we really don't know at all what natural process is involved, and the universe is an extremely inhospitable place, then would it change things concerning the likelihood of alien life existing...I think so.
One can assume life is extremely rare inputting the most pessimistic numbers into say the Drake equation and still come out with thousands of planets with intelligent life on them. The human mind simply not capable of really fathoming the types of numbers we are working with, and then again added to that the fact all the basic things we know life needs, like water, etc, are very common in the universe.
Make it extremely rare and make it "nearly impossible" to happen, and you end up with a big number of planets with life on them. When you're working with number and time frames like that, along with what we know about life on earth, being neither fragile or rare as once assumed, the statistically likelihood of using being alone is as close to zero as one can get until we find something, or something is released to us that proves it and so forth.
That's really all there is too it and one can reject what ever that want from it as it suits their word view and such.
To repeat, a totally different discussion to whether any of them have visited us, and that's far less likely in the view of most scientists who do that for a living. I'm a reductionist and try to distill things down to it's basic level where I can get no further without more intel.
I am, as are many, convinced that there's something in our airspace that can't be explained by any known way. The Nimitz event alone is one of many, and there's a handful of them that are a lock for me. That leaves two possibilties:
(1) It's us (human tech)
(2) It's not us
Exploring either of those options brings up a lot of interesting Qs and were covered at length in prior threads. Most probably land on option 1, but that seems to imply we have developed tech that defies physics as we know it, and highly qualified SME's who have seen the capabilities of the UFOs are clear we are not even close to such tech.
Business_Casual
07-31-20, 17:06
The Drake Equation is specious.
Putting aside the validity of the Drake equation for a moment. The number that i gave as the probability for abiogenises is a low number, I think its much much higher. Even that surpasses by a huge magnitude the estimated number of stars in the known universe. I think you may be down playing the magnitude of the problem of live coming from non life.
The Drake Equation is specious.
Use any equation you wish, they'll all come out the same results give or take.
Putting aside the validity of the Drake equation for a moment. The number that i gave as the probability for abiogenises is a low number, I think its much much higher. Even that surpasses by a huge magnitude the estimated number of stars in the known universe. I think you may be down playing the magnitude of the problem of live coming from non life.
The Drake equation, like most equations is as valid as the data you input into it, and at this point, what gets inputed into that equation mostly a WAG. I mentioned it simply as a reference point. As we have n = 1 example currently, no one really knows the probability of life existing on another planet from the aspect of the staring point itself. Life on this planet demonstrates its neither rare nor fragile as once thought, and again, along with the shear numbers, and the fact all the needed chems of life are common, vast majority of scientists in the field conclude, well, you, know.
Adrenaline_6
07-31-20, 19:30
Again, like I mentioned earlier. It doesn't matter how common organic chemicals are, how many planets that have them and can support life there are...if the theory that life can be made from organic chemicals is false, all those numbers are multiplying into 0.
If it's true, then yes, if it can be done once, why can't it be done again....but be as it may, that theory is still totally unproven. There are many unanswered questions by critics of the theory that cannot come close to being answered with our current knowledge.
Again, like I mentioned earlier. It doesn't matter how common organic chemicals are, how many planets that have them and can support life there are...if the theory that life can be made from organic chemicals is false, all those numbers are multiplying into 0.
If it's true, then yes, if it can be done once, why can't it be done again....but be as it may, that theory is still totally unproven. There are many unanswered questions by critics of the theory that cannot come close to being answered with our current knowledge.
I think the issue becomes can we rely on scientists that dismiss supernaturalism from the get go and assume as the only viable position to hold naturalism/materialism. Since naturalism is the only viable position, then it follows that non-living chemicals had to evolve into living things. What else do we have? As improbable as abiogenesis is, it had to happen that way. We're just waiting for science to catch up for the explanation. I think denying the possibility of supernaturalism is irrationalism (some do here, some don't). Even if life does begin from natural processes, here and out there, I wonder how probable it is that it would evolve past the stage of worms, to the stage of interstellar travel.
I am, as are many, convinced that there's something in our airspace that can't be explained by any known way. The Nimitz event alone is one of many, and there's a handful of them that are a lock for me. That leaves two possibilties:
(1) It's us (human tech)
(2) It's not us
Exploring either of those options brings up a lot of interesting Qs and were covered at length in prior threads. Most probably land on option 1, but that seems to imply we have developed tech that defies physics as we know it, and highly qualified SME's who have seen the capabilities of the UFOs are clear we are not even close to such tech.
The three videos related to the Nimitz event “GIMBAL.wmv,” “GOFAST.wmv,” and “FLIR.mp4" are all unremarkable, with many reasonable explanations and generally of such low quality that like most other "ufo film" evidence are far from anything credible.
Two things drive me crazy about the whole UFO concept.
1. People in government who dismiss footage of what at the time was probably SR-71 flights as "weather balloons" because we are looking at classified tech.
2. People everywhere else who will take the grainiest footage of something in the sky and declare it to be an alien mothership.
Going all the way back to Adamski, the people who are heavily involved in exposing the UFO conspiracy do the most damage to any reasonable evaluation because they have so many credibility problems and make amazingly outlandish claims.
As a basic example of the problem, if we were actually being visited, the US would hardly be the only country to figure that out, for decades the Soviet Union was on it's highest alert scanning for things like U2s. And if both countries realized "hey...there is something bigger going on" money and resources would not have been wasted on Cold Wars, proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam and everything else.
Despite our Cold War posture, when it came time to send probes to other planets, we were the ones that sent the more successful probes to Mars and Russia had more success with Venus and we did a lot of sharing of information. If there were actually confirmed alien space craft flying around the planet you'd have seen an unprecedented level of cooperation.
I think the issue becomes can we rely on scientists that dismiss supernaturalism from the get go and assume as the only viable position to hold naturalism/materialism. Since naturalism is the only viable position, then it follows that non-living chemicals had to evolve into living things. What else do we have? As improbable as abiogenesis is, it had to happen that way. We're just waiting for science to catch up for the explanation. I think denying the possibility of supernaturalism is irrationalism (some do here, some don't). Even if life does begin from natural processes, here and out there, I wonder how probable it is that it would evolve past the stage of worms, to the stage of interstellar travel.
If you are waiting for science to arrive at your absolute statement, you will be waiting a LONG time because we don't have the ability to falsify or prove the idea. Unsupported absolutes are not science.
If you are waiting for science to arrive at your absolute statement, you will be waiting a LONG time because we don't have the ability to falsify or prove the idea. Unsupported absolutes are not science.
Well, I'll just say I haven't heard of or read of anything on the horizon that will replace it anytime soon. If nature is all there is then nature did it. Do I read you right?
Well, I'll just say I haven't heard of or read of anything on the horizon that will replace it anytime soon. If nature is all there is then nature did it. Do I read you right?
It's an idea, but only that.
We know evolution is a process that exists, we just don't know how that process originated.
We know what we know, we can guess about what we don't know for sure, but until we have a way of proving we are right...at the end of the day we don't know.
I think everything ascribed to the supernatural is simply our placeholder until we come to understand it, that is assuming it actually exists and we are perceiving things correctly. We could probably discuss the nuances of this for years without accomplishing anything more than a slightly more correct understanding of each others beliefs.
But science, if it's actual science, doesn't have a need to fill in all the blanks. The blanks are why science exists. If we truly believed we knew everything and truly believed our assumptions are correct, there wouldn't be any need for science because we'd believe that we already have all of the answers.
The reality of science is that every time we actually get an answer that is complete and definitive, it generates a hundred new questions that we didn't even know enough to ask. If science was as you say, quantum wouldn't exist because it threw everything we were confident and comfortable about into disarray and there isn't a scientist in the world who wouldn't love to be the person to arrive at a unified theory between relativity and quantum, so far there are no takers.
Science would have preferred an infinite and steady state universe that was without beginning even if we couldn't explain why. It was easier to accept, but once we discovered an expanding universe we had to accept a time when there was no space and no time, and that just created a whole bunch of new problems that we haven't completely solved and probably never will because you can't observe anything that happened before the beginning.
Where did life first come from, doesn't matter if it happened here or came adrift on the cosmic sea, it happened first someplace. And again, we don't have any idea how that happened. We know what life forms are made of and we know how life developed from simple forms to more complex life. But we can only guess at how "creation" for lack of a better word, happened.
And if there is a creator that exists in the natural universe, then the supernatural is just another thing that exists that we have difficulty incorporating into a universe that we wish was completely governed by newtonian physics that doesn't seem to play by the rules, kind of like quantum.
So if somebody is genuinely a person of science, they will be the first to say "we don't know." We begin from "we don't know", sometimes we have an idea that we believe might be correct and when we are capable of checking it by repeatable experiments or methods of falsification we sometimes arrive at an answer and typically it is one that was not expected, and they tend to create new and more difficult questions.
If science is as you say it is, scientists would have rejected most of what we know today because we already had an answer or a really good guess. Evolution is complicated, quantum is complicated, an expanding universe that seems to have began from a singularity is complicated. These aren't the results most scientists were hoping for, all we managed to learn is that we don't know as much as we believed we did previous to these discoveries.
It's an idea, but only that.
We know evolution is a process that exists, we just don't know how that process originated.
We know what we know, we can guess about what we don't know for sure, but until we have a way of proving we are right...at the end of the day we don't know.
I think everything ascribed to the supernatural is simply our placeholder until we come to understand it, that is assuming it actually exists and we are perceiving things correctly. We could probably discuss the nuances of this for years without accomplishing anything more than a slightly more correct understanding of each others beliefs.
But science, if it's actual science, doesn't have a need to fill in all the blanks. The blanks are why science exists. If we truly believed we knew everything and truly believed our assumptions are correct, there wouldn't be any need for science because we'd believe that we already have all of the answers.
The reality of science is that every time we actually get an answer that is complete and definitive, it generates a hundred new questions that we didn't even know enough to ask. If science was as you say, quantum wouldn't exist because it threw everything we were confident and comfortable about into disarray and there isn't a scientist in the world who wouldn't love to be the person to arrive at a unified theory between relativity and quantum, so far there are no takers.
Science would have preferred an infinite and steady state universe that was without beginning even if we couldn't explain why. It was easier to accept, but once we discovered an expanding universe we had to accept a time when there was no space and no time, and that just created a whole bunch of new problems that we haven't completely solved and probably never will because you can't observe anything that happened before the beginning.
Where did life first come from, doesn't matter if it happened here or came adrift on the cosmic sea, it happened first someplace. And again, we don't have any idea how that happened. We know what life forms are made of and we know how life developed from simple forms to more complex life. But we can only guess at how "creation" for lack of a better word, happened.
And if there is a creator that exists in the natural universe, then the supernatural is just another thing that exists that we have difficulty incorporating into a universe that we wish was completely governed by newtonian physics that doesn't seem to play by the rules, kind of like quantum.
So if somebody is genuinely a person of science, they will be the first to say "we don't know." We begin from "we don't know", sometimes we have an idea that we believe might be correct and when we are capable of checking it by repeatable experiments or methods of falsification we sometimes arrive at an answer and typically it is one that was not expected, and they tend to create new and more difficult questions.
If science is as you say it is, scientists would have rejected most of what we know today because we already had an answer or a really good guess. Evolution is complicated, quantum is complicated, an expanding universe that seems to have began from a singularity is complicated. These aren't the results most scientists were hoping for, all we managed to learn is that we don't know as much as we believed we did previous to these discoveries.
If someone perfectly comfortable with believing in super natural explanations for things, and thinks scientists and science minded people think science has all the answers, then there's really nothing you or I can say that will alter that POV. Science posits a question, then attempts to answer it, and that's all their is too it at the end of the day. The biggest questions that we have, there's no definitive answers, may never be any. Then it's a matter of how much supportive evidence exists to support the Q. There's an incredible amount of supportive evidence for the Big Bang for example, but what existed prior to that is a unknown and when they use the term "singularity" it's fancy science speak for they don't know.
One can suggest higher powers were involved, and that's fine too, but there's no actual supportive evidence for it, and "it must have happened that way" positions are not evidence.
Science is about evidence, and of course does not confirm or deny in any way the existence of higher powers. I don't think most people who are believers in higher powers really appreciate/understand that aspect.
Myself, I try to remain agnostic about it all. As you pointed out, evolution is a fact, that much we know. What got all that started is unknown and the choices are:
God(s)
Aliens
Panspermia (but that sorta passes the buck on origins)
Nature
Minus any evidence to the contrary, nature is the default answer, so getting back on topic, with our n=1 example (Earth...) we simply don't know if life is common, incredibly rare, or we are it in the universe. By the numbers, the last one is statistically unlikely as you know, but fact is, science is still trying to answer that Q. As the man said:
'Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.' - Arthur C. Clarke
The three videos related to the Nimitz event “GIMBAL.wmv,” “GOFAST.wmv,” and “FLIR.mp4" are all unremarkable, with many reasonable explanations and generally of such low quality that like most other "ufo film" evidence are far from anything credible.
Well then lets here your "many reasonable explanations" then?
Oh and please allow them to account for all the very credible eye witnesses who saw them and maneuvered against them, the radar data from the Nimitz, Princeton and two airborne E-2 Hawkeyes...
Well then lets here your "many reasonable explanations" then?
Oh and please allow them to account for all the very credible eye witnesses who saw them and maneuvered against them, the radar data from the Nimitz, Princeton and two airborne E-2 Hawkeyes...
They aren't "my" explanations and they are easily found if anyone has even the slightest inclination to do even the most minimum research. Additionally, the explanations don't in any way impugn the integrity of the military pilots and to the best of my knowledge none of the pilots have declared them to be alien space craft.
But as I've stated before, when we actually have some kind of artifact that can be studied, then we can begin this conversation to a point beyond mere speculation.
Right now we have Harry Reid and Marco Rubio who are excited about an idea that the evidence they will evaluate might provide something new. If you want to put your faith in them, that is up to you.
'Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.' - Arthur C. Clarke
Clarke really did have a way with words.
They aren't "my" explanations and they are easily found if anyone has even the slightest inclination to do even the most minimum research. Additionally, the explanations don't in any way impugn the integrity of the military pilots and to the best of my knowledge none of the pilots have declared them to be alien space craft.
But as I've stated before, when we actually have some kind of artifact that can be studied, then we can begin this conversation to a point beyond mere speculation.
Right now we have Harry Reid and Marco Rubio who are excited about an idea that the evidence they will evaluate might provide something new. If you want to put your faith in them, that is up to you.
Nope... you posted them as your position. You stated that "The three videos related to the Nimitz event “GIMBAL.wmv,” “GOFAST.wmv,” and “FLIR.mp4" are all unremarkable, with many reasonable explanations".... so lets here them, not excuses...
I'm waiting... lets hear it kid...
Nope... you posted them as your position. You stated that "The three videos related to the Nimitz event “GIMBAL.wmv,” “GOFAST.wmv,” and “FLIR.mp4" are all unremarkable, with many reasonable explanations".... so lets here them, not excuses...
I'm waiting... lets hear it kid...
So if I post Sagan's position on something it automatically becomes mine to defend? Seriously.
So let's start with extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
But you want examples, ok.
These three videos videos has prompted a number of explanations, including drones or unidentified terrestrial aircraft, anomalous or artefactual instrument readings, physical observational phenomena (e.g., parallax), human observational and interpretive error.
As of 2020, the aerial phenomena recorded from the Nimitz and Roosevelt events are characterized by the US Department of Defense as "unidentified". Widespread media attention to these events has motivated theories and speculations from private individuals and groups about the underlying explanation(s), including those focused upon pseudoscience topics such as Ufology. Regarding the pseudoscientific explanations, writer Matthew Gault stated that these events "reflect the same pattern that's played out dozens of times before. Someone sees something strange in the sky...and the public jumps to an illogical conclusion."
Mundane, non-pseudoscientific explanations include instrument or software malfunction/anomaly/artifact, human observational illusion (e.g., parallax) or interpretive error, or common aircraft (e.g., a passenger airliner) or aerial device (e.g., weather balloon), with the science writer Mick West stating that the reported objects in these incidents are "most likely...a relatively slow-moving object like a bird or a balloon," and that "the jet filming it is moving fast, so this creates an illusion of speed against the ocean." West stated that the GIMBAL video can be explained as footage of a distant plane with the apparent rotation actually being the glare in the IR camera rotating.
You will of course want sources...
https://www.cnet.com/news/ufo-navy-airplane-video-skeptics-weigh-in-to-the-stars/
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2018/05/navy-pilots-2004-ufo-a-comedy-of-errors/
https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/navy-videos-showing-ufos-not-aliens
There ya go kid.
So if I post Sagan's position on something it automatically becomes mine to defend? Seriously.
So let's start with extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
But you want examples, ok.
These three videos videos has prompted a number of explanations, including drones or unidentified terrestrial aircraft, anomalous or artefactual instrument readings, physical observational phenomena (e.g., parallax), human observational and interpretive error.
As of 2020, the aerial phenomena recorded from the Nimitz and Roosevelt events are characterized by the US Department of Defense as "unidentified". Widespread media attention to these events has motivated theories and speculations from private individuals and groups about the underlying explanation(s), including those focused upon pseudoscience topics such as Ufology. Regarding the pseudoscientific explanations, writer Matthew Gault stated that these events "reflect the same pattern that's played out dozens of times before. Someone sees something strange in the sky...and the public jumps to an illogical conclusion."
Mundane, non-pseudoscientific explanations include instrument or software malfunction/anomaly/artifact, human observational illusion (e.g., parallax) or interpretive error, or common aircraft (e.g., a passenger airliner) or aerial device (e.g., weather balloon), with the science writer Mick West stating that the reported objects in these incidents are "most likely...a relatively slow-moving object like a bird or a balloon," and that "the jet filming it is moving fast, so this creates an illusion of speed against the ocean." West stated that the GIMBAL video can be explained as footage of a distant plane with the apparent rotation actually being the glare in the IR camera rotating.
You will of course want sources...
https://www.cnet.com/news/ufo-navy-airplane-video-skeptics-weigh-in-to-the-stars/
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2018/05/navy-pilots-2004-ufo-a-comedy-of-errors/
https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/navy-videos-showing-ufos-not-aliens
There ya go kid.
Thanks for making my point... you don't have a clue, all you can do is post other peoples opinions as if that somehow makes you look intelligent on the subject. And BTW Mick West's opinion of this incident makes him look like an idiot... ignoring everything but the video. Birds or ballon's my pasty white butt. :lol:
Perhaps you should dig deeper into the eye witness accounts and the reported data captured by multiple independent radar sources which showed unimaginable acceleration rates horizontally and vertically as well as the crafts ability to instantly relocate to the F-18's original rendezvous point...
Lots of good technical info in this article if you want to read up.
https://blog.usni.org/posts/2020/01/10/the-navy-and-the-uaps
If this was in fact ours none of these people would have never been allowed to say anything, the leaker who leaked the videos would be in Gitmo right now and the Pentagon would simply not comment on any of this.
If this thing belonged to China, Russia or the Jamaican Bob Sled Team, (the last possibility IMHO, they don't have the capabilities to recreate basic military tech we created in the 70's and 80's. Good example is Russia and its ongoing SU-57 saga, China and its type S-400 saga, their J-20/21/31 et al... But lets say it did.) You'd see unimaginable amounts of money disappearing down the US black budget hole funding what would almost be a Manhattan Project level, herculean program to engineer it or a defense to it, ourselves.
Third possibility, it's as close to real proof the UFO's or whatever you want to call it are real.
Now what do I mean when I say UFO? Honestly that's open for a wide interpretation, could be aliens, could be interdimensional, could be supernatural... who the freak knows. I dont know and you certainly dont. What I do know is that this is the most credible, most amazing UFO sighting in our history and something is going on behind the scenes that has a lot of journalist from Fox News to the CNN and the NY Times writing about it.
Hell even Scientific American is writing about how exciting this is and how other scientists need to look into this stuff.
Isn't it obvious that all these sightings and the analysis of the sightings are just somebody's opinion of what they saw (seeing is believing?) or an after the fact story telling?
Isn't it obvious that all these sightings and the analysis of the sightings are just somebody's opinion of what they saw (seeing is believing?) or an after the fact story telling?
Versus what, a real time feed to FB for the pubic to view from the Nimitz?
Versus what, a real time feed to FB for the pubic to view from the Nimitz?
No, some actual alien stuff that can be put on display, where actual stuff is analyzed by various believers in such things, skeptics, and those with no axe to grind.
Without artifacts it's going to be pretty hard IMO to prove much of anything.
No, some actual alien stuff that can be put on display, where actual stuff is analyzed by various believers in such things, skeptics, and those with no axe to grind.
That would be great. Some fairly reputable people claim such things exist and have been kept from the public eye. True or not, I have no idea. Personally I feel there's more than enough evidence to conclude there's something in our airspace that can't be explained away by weather balloons, birds, etc. and the Nimitz event one many.
Beyond that, I can't say but supposedly, per OP article, some info of interest to be released soon.
Thanks for making my point... you don't have a clue, all you can do is post other peoples opinions as if that somehow makes you look intelligent on the subject. And BTW Mick West's opinion of this incident makes him look like an idiot... ignoring everything but the video. Birds or ballon's my pasty white butt. :lol:
Perhaps you should dig deeper into the eye witness accounts and the reported data captured by multiple independent radar sources which showed unimaginable acceleration rates horizontally and vertically as well as the crafts ability to instantly relocate to the F-18's original rendezvous point...
Lots of good technical info in this article if you want to read up.
https://blog.usni.org/posts/2020/01/10/the-navy-and-the-uaps
If this was in fact ours none of these people would have never been allowed to say anything, the leaker who leaked the videos would be in Gitmo right now and the Pentagon would simply not comment on any of this.
If this thing belonged to China, Russia or the Jamaican Bob Sled Team, (the last possibility IMHO, they don't have the capabilities to recreate basic military tech we created in the 70's and 80's. Good example is Russia and its ongoing SU-57 saga, China and its type S-400 saga, their J-20/21/31 et al... But lets say it did.) You'd see unimaginable amounts of money disappearing down the US black budget hole funding what would almost be a Manhattan Project level, herculean program to engineer it or a defense to it, ourselves.
Third possibility, it's as close to real proof the UFO's or whatever you want to call it are real.
Now what do I mean when I say UFO? Honestly that's open for a wide interpretation, could be aliens, could be interdimensional, could be supernatural... who the freak knows. I dont know and you certainly dont. What I do know is that this is the most credible, most amazing UFO sighting in our history and something is going on behind the scenes that has a lot of journalist from Fox News to the CNN and the NY Times writing about it.
Hell even Scientific American is writing about how exciting this is and how other scientists need to look into this stuff.
I’ve been following this thread since the beginning and just watching from the side lines. What makes these videos the most verifiable evidence is the number of people who witnessed the events from multiple platforms.
Also, I believe there are NOTAM’s on the east coast to watch out for “orbs” in our air space so pilots don’t hit them. The orbs thus far have not been identified. They apparently behave very similar to the gimbal and go fast videos.
I’ve been following this thread since the beginning and just watching from the side lines. What makes these videos the most verifiable evidence is the number of people who witnessed the events from multiple platforms.
Also, I believe there are NOTAM’s on the east coast to watch out for “orbs” in our air space so pilots don’t hit them. The orbs thus far have not been identified. They apparently behave very similar to the gimbal and go fast videos.
Personally, I found the interviews from the various radar operators even more compelling than the pilots which gets overlooked. They're all lying or they all took the same drugs and their tech, the most advanced tech the US has, glitched simultaneously or weather balloons... I find Mr Day as extremely credible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2zRabdvKnw&t=264s
Personally, I found the interviews from the various radar operators even more compelling than the pilots which gets overlooked. They're all lying or they all took the same drugs and their tech, the most advanced tech the US has, glitched simultaneously or weather balloons... I find Mr Day as extremely credible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2zRabdvKnw&t=264s
1000%.
1000%.
Anyone can watch that and still think there was not something in their airspace that was no craft of ours and not balloons, birds, drones, is simply in denial at that point in my view.
Our (human) tech super advanced tech messing with our own people or "other" I don't know.
Either possibility is amazing.
Anyone can watch that and still think there was not something in their airspace that was no craft of ours and not balloons, birds, drones, is simply in denial at that point in my view.
Our (human) tech super advanced tech messing with our own people or "other" I don't know.
Either possibility is amazing.
If not “inter dimensional” or from “space” (From either past or current visits) it’s our tech and we are flexing it against other world powers....like look at what we can do and you can’t. I tend to think think if it’s our tech it would be world changing...the power sources alone could solve a lot. I also like the “theory” as crazy as it sounds that it’s REALLY old and been on earth for millennia and we dug it up in archeological digs...yes people like Lazar have said this already but it’s an interesting theory.
There is so much we don’t know, just like our ancestors would look at an iPad or any other current tech and couldn’t even comprehend it. It’s also interesting how we have advanced so quickly in the last 50 years relatively speaking. What AI will be able to do in the next couple years/decades after only 50 years of development took humans millennia to do, which is terribly scary if you think about it. We essentially live in a universe that shouldn’t exist, just the EXACT right set of circumstances had to happen for there to be “matter”, than take into account our solar system (the perfect sun, earth being the perfect distance from the sun, having a moon, having a gas giant to protect us etc..).
I also like the thought experiment that says if the universe is infinite, than there should be infinite earths and infinite “you’s”. If it’s finite, then there are possibly multiple universes or “bubbles”.
If not “inter dimensional” or from “space” (From either past or current visits) it’s our tech and we are flexing it against other world powers....like look at what we can do and you can’t. I tend to think think if it’s our tech it would be world changing...the power sources alone could solve a lot. I also like the “theory” as crazy as it sounds that it’s REALLY old and been on earth for millennia and we dug it up in archeological digs...yes people like Lazar have said this already but it’s an interesting theory.
There is so much we don’t know, just like our ancestors would look at an iPad or any other current tech and couldn’t even comprehend it. It’s also interesting how we have advanced so quickly in the last 50 years relatively speaking. What AI will be able to do in the next couple years/decades after only 50 years of development took humans millennia to do, which is terribly scary if you think about it. We essentially live in a universe that shouldn’t exist, just the EXACT right set of circumstances had to happen for there to be “matter”, than take into account our solar system (the perfect sun, earth being the perfect distance from the sun, having a moon, having a gas giant to protect us etc..).
I also like the thought experiment that says if the universe is infinite, than there should be infinite earths and infinite “you’s”. If it’s finite, then there are possibly multiple universes or “bubbles”.
There's various possiblities:
It's us
It's us from the future
Aliens
Inter dimensional travelers.
For some reason find the last one most compelling/interesting possibility. "On paper" the most likely answer is the first one, but it raises more Q's then it answers.
What's clearly not is weather balloons, mistaken commonly used/known aircraft, or birds and the like.
There's various possiblities:
It's us
It's us from the future
Aliens
Inter dimensional travelers.
For some reason find the last one most compelling/interesting possibility. "On paper" the most likely answer is the first one, but it raises more Q's then it answers.
What's clearly not is weather balloons, mistaken commonly used/known aircraft, or birds and the like.
I’ve also read that there’s a 50/50 chance that we are just a sophisticated simulation...ala the matrix style (plugged in) or the sims style (or completely digital).
Either way, I agree the gimbal videos are not birds, weather balloons, or common aircraft...the object was aware of our presence and reacting to “us”.
I’ve also read that there’s a 50/50 chance that we are just a sophisticated simulation...ala the matrix style (plugged in) or the sims style (or completely digital).
Either way, I agree the gimbal videos are not birds, weather balloons, or common aircraft...the object was aware of our presence and reacting to “us”.
In your first sentence you cast serious doubt upon the ability of man to come to knowledge through empiric methods, our senses aren't reliable, for we can't even tell if things are real. A 50/50 chance that we are a simulation is a pretty high chance.
In the second sentence you appeal to those vary senses to make an assertion "the object was aware of our presence".
Maybe to make sense of it all we need a different starting point than ourselves, something truly objective.
I’ve also read that there’s a 50/50 chance that we are just a sophisticated simulation...ala the matrix style (plugged in) or the sims style (or completely digital).
Either way, I agree the gimbal videos are not birds, weather balloons, or common aircraft...the object was aware of our presence and reacting to “us”.
I don't know about 50/50 but if you really wanna go down the rabbit hole, this is as good as it gets:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd6CQCbk2ro
Rabbit hole indeed. Nothing is really true, the math says so. Is the math real? Is there actually truth, and is the good professor the only one that has seen it?
Rabbit hole indeed. Nothing is really true, the math says so.
He's not saying that, so either didn't watch it or you didn't understand it.
Is the math real?
Apparently the "math checks out" as they like to say but it's math so beyond me I can only take the word of the other mathematicians, physicists, that claim it does.
Is there actually truth,
Yes, but that does mean he's found it. I strongly suspect he has, or at least some essential aspects of it, and he's completely open to being wrong. Good scientists are like that...
and is the good professor the only one that has seen it?
I don't know and he's very clear he does not know either.
He's not saying that, so either didn't watch it or you didn't understand it.
Apparently the "math checks out" as they like to say but it's math so beyond me I can only take the word of the other mathematicians, physicists, that claim it does.
Yes, but that does mean he's found it. I strongly suspect he has, or at least some essential aspects of it, and he's completely open to being wrong. Good scientists are like that...
I don't know and he's very clear he does not know either.
It's 2 hours long, I watched about 20 minutes of it. If the things he is saying are true (and how could one actually know), does he actually know the "truth" so he can tell the difference between the "truth" and the "non-truth"? How can anyone discern the "real" truth from the survival points? If he doesn't know the "truth" then what knowledge could he possibly pass on to others? Even his own peers, severely doubted his hypothesis. This is gnosticism with a vengence.
It's 2 hours long, I watched about 20 minutes of it. If the things he is saying are true (and how could one actually know), does he actually know the "truth" so he can tell the difference between the "truth" and the "non-truth"? How can anyone discern the "real" truth from the survival points? If he doesn't know the "truth" then what knowledge could he possibly pass on to others? Even his own peers, severely doubted his hypothesis. This is gnosticism with a vengence.
Then I'm done with the topic. It's not a topic of interest to you and you obviously have it all figured out. I posted for rushca01 as his comment suggested he's interest in the exploration of the topic and you jumped in. Maybe we can get back on topic to UFOs.
Apparently the "math checks out" as they like to say but it's math so beyond me I can only take the word of the other mathematicians, physicists, that claim it does.
.
I get what you're saying but first off one must understand that somethings only exist in the world of math.
I'm currently in the Covid holding pattern as a grad student in applied mathematics at Tennessee Tech. But the one thing I've had to grasp and fundamentally understand is that a lot of things exist in mathematics only. Take for example a negative length in a triangle.
The math will checkout but... If you remember the Pythagorean Theorem? Where the length of two sides of a right triangle are known, then you can find the value of the third side. Mathematically, the length of the hypotenuse can be 0, it could also be negative.
But as they say, "the math checks out"...
Now show me a physical geometric shape with a negative value and I'll show you a living breathing tachyon... calculation may be mathematically correct but still “wrong” when we try to apply it to the “real world”.
I get what you're saying but first off one must understand that somethings only exist in the world of math.
I'm currently in the Covid holding pattern as a grad student in applied mathematics at Tennessee Tech. But the one thing I've had to grasp and fundamentally understand is that a lot of things exist in mathematics only. Take for example a negative length in a triangle.
The math will checkout but... If you remember the Pythagorean Theorem? Where the length of two sides of a right triangle are known, then you can find the value of the third side. Mathematically, the length of the hypotenuse can be 0, it could also be negative.
But as they say, "the math checks out"...
Now show me a physical geometric shape with a negative value and I'll show you a living breathing tachyon... calculation may be mathematically correct but still “wrong” when we try to apply it to the “real world”.
I'm well aware of that but also remember the goal of science is ultimately be able to confirm the math with testable evidence or it's just philosophy to a scientist. The math, behind Eisenstein's work, said time would differ between two moving bodies and that was not confirmed until the atomic clock experiments and so forth. Same for quantum entanglement and so on.
I know math, science, philosophy, and even religion, can have their overlaps, but I also know how scientists, even those working at the very edges of human understanding view such things.
BTW, I suspect you will really enjoy that video I posted then, and it gets really good about mid way through.
Thanks for making my point... you don't have a clue, all you can do is post other peoples opinions as if that somehow makes you look intelligent on the subject.
So I don't need to do my own personal experiments to understand what the speed of light is. But somehow I manage to be able to know what the speed of light is.
Also how the hell do you know who won World War II? It's not like you were even there. You don't have a clue. All you can do is read other peoples work and present it as your own information.
So there ya go kid, your own personal circular stupid argument that does NOTHING to prove or discredit anything.
So cliff notes:
This subject was presented as "amazing new evidence" of aliens.
I looked into the subject objectively and formed an opinion based upon existing data and interpretations.
I expressed my opinion here based upon information I researched.
You objected to my opinion so I directed you to data and interpretations of data.
You attempted to play some Junior High level "gotcha game" debate that was slightly more sophisticated than "I know you are but what am I?"
And now I have to explain that most people with valid opinions form them by investigating a subject and relying upon existing information. This way I don't have to have people drop apples from trees to attempt to explain gravity.
BTW, I suspect you will really enjoy that video I posted then, and it gets really good about mid way through.
I do plan to watch it, it sounds very interesting!
So I don't need to do my own personal experiments to understand what the speed of light is. But somehow I manage to be able to know what the speed of light is.
Also how the hell do you know who won World War II? It's not like you were even there. You don't have a clue. All you can do is read other peoples work and present it as your own information.
So there ya go kid, your own personal circular stupid argument that does NOTHING to prove or discredit anything.
So cliff notes:
This subject was presented as "amazing new evidence" of aliens.
I looked into the subject objectively and formed an opinion based upon existing data and interpretations.
I expressed my opinion here based upon information I researched.
You objected to my opinion so I directed you to data and interpretations of data.
You attempted to play some Junior High level "gotcha game" debate that was slightly more sophisticated than "I know you are but what am I?"
And now I have to explain that most people with valid opinions form them by investigating a subject and relying upon existing information. This way I don't have to have people drop apples from trees to attempt to explain gravity.
LOL!!! Only if that were true...
Have a great weekend my friend... tell you what, send me your address and I'll make sure you have front row seats when I graduate would love to buy you a beer...
Well, after watching the middle 20 minutes of this video, Hoffman speaking of nested, possibly an infinite number or one infinite conscious agent(s) and that we might be able to put this into a mathematical formula, and that we can begin to use the scientific method to discover all this, all I can say is that he's looking to invent a new religion. A synthesis of religion and science. It's certainly a brave new world isn't it.
Well, after watching the middle 20 minutes of this video, Hoffman speaking of nested, possibly an infinite number or one infinite conscious agent(s) and that we might be able to put this into a mathematical formula, and that we can begin to use the scientific method to discover all this, all I can say is that he's looking to invent a new religion. A synthesis of religion and science. It's certainly a brave new world isn't it.
I wouldn't get too caught up in that video. While an interesting mental exercise, there are so many unfounded scientific ideas where "the math supports it" I couldn't begin to possibly list them all. If you have any serious mathematical ability you can write a mathematical equation that supports almost anything and the math checks out.
Basically if I can define X, I can make Y be anything I want it to be. This is why string theory requires 26 spatial dimensions for space time alone. And it's not that string theory is right or wrong because the math supports it, it's more of a case of IF string theory is correct it requires 26 spatial dimensions.
Now math is important in things like Newtonian physics where the variables already are defined and the related math tells us something new, like how far away things are based upon the speed of light. But when it comes to theoretical, the math isn't as significant otherwise it wouldn't still be in the theoretical.
All the math is saying is that IF string is correct, then the properties of space time that allow it MUST be this. And quite honestly we've been wrong before about a lot of things. Theoretical is a guide, not a destination. When we arrive at the destination, quite often we find something completely unexpected and then have to figure out where we went wrong with the math. When we are very, very lucky we almost fully understand what we are seeing.
There is another theory where the universe behaves in different ways by simply being observed and that if man didn't exist the universe wouldn't be the same. The implications of such an idea produce probably the most challenging questions we've ever even considered and the real problem is the more sophisticated we become in observations of the universe, the more we see indications of exactly this kind of perception problem. So it isn't as easily dismissed as the "reality doesn't really exist" rabbit hole, it's a "we might have to reconsider everything we know" kind of problem.
The other problem is while we think that is what we are seeing, we aren't even close to being sophisticated enough to begin to rewrite the rule book based upon the new rules because we can't even define what the new rules might be. The other problem is what we think we are seeing might be something completely different that we haven't even considered yet.
This is why I pretty much adhere to "we don't have enough evidence to declare an absolute answer yet" when it comes to a lot of the hard questions.
Adrenaline_6
08-03-20, 07:53
I wouldn't get too caught up in that video. While an interesting mental exercise, there are so many unfounded scientific ideas where "the math supports it" I couldn't begin to possibly list them all. If you have any serious mathematical ability you can write a mathematical equation that supports almost anything and the math checks out.
Basically if I can define X, I can make Y be anything I want it to be. This is why string theory requires 26 spatial dimensions for space time alone. And it's not that string theory is right or wrong because the math supports it, it's more of a case of IF string theory is correct it requires 26 spatial dimensions.
Now math is important in things like Newtonian physics where the variables already are defined and the related math tells us something new, like how far away things are based upon the speed of light. But when it comes to theoretical, the math isn't as significant otherwise it wouldn't still be in the theoretical.
All the math is saying is that IF string is correct, then the properties of space time that allow it MUST be this. And quite honestly we've been wrong before about a lot of things. Theoretical is a guide, not a destination. When we arrive at the destination, quite often we find something completely unexpected and then have to figure out where we went wrong with the math. When we are very, very lucky we almost fully understand what we are seeing.
There is another theory where the universe behaves in different ways by simply being observed and that if man didn't exist the universe wouldn't be the same. The implications of such an idea produce probably the most challenging questions we've ever even considered and the real problem is the more sophisticated we become in observations of the universe, the more we see indications of exactly this kind of perception problem. So it isn't as easily dismissed as the "reality doesn't really exist" rabbit hole, it's a "we might have to reconsider everything we know" kind of problem.
The other problem is while we think that is what we are seeing, we aren't even close to being sophisticated enough to begin to rewrite the rule book based upon the new rules because we can't even define what the new rules might be. The other problem is what we think we are seeing might be something completely different that we haven't even considered yet.
This is why I pretty much adhere to "we don't have enough evidence to declare an absolute answer yet" when it comes to a lot of the hard questions.
I think this fact gets missed by people....a lot.
This is why I pretty much adhere to "we don't have enough evidence to declare an absolute answer yet" when it comes to a lot of the hard questions.
Dr Hoffman does not make any claims of absolute answers to anything and makes that very clear, one of the reasons I like his work. His is groundbreaking work. As you're also well aware, contrary to belief by those who don't science, science declares absolutes about surprisingly little.
Right at 1 hour he says "I'll be the first to say I'm probably wrong" so so again, anyone claiming it's some arrogant scientist claiming he's pretending he has the inside scoop to the truth either didn't watch or didn't understand it.
Again, one of the reasons I like his work...
Good scientists that make the big leaps don't adhere to absolutes in all but rare examples. They big thinkers (min 40-50 ish) are apparently even letting go of space-time as both the math and actual experiments suggest it's not the answer and why they have not come up with a unified theory.
I think this fact gets missed by people....a lot.
Yeah, it's a big one. Even with E=mc2 we were pretty sure on the math, but nobody was positive on the real world results until we actually did it. Einsteins math suggested black holes should exist, but it wasn't for sure until we actually found one.
Dr Hoffman does not make any claims of absolute answers to anything and makes that very clear, one of the reasons I like his work. His is groundbreaking work. As you're also well aware, contrary to belief by those who don't science, science declares absolutes about surprisingly little.
Right at 1 hour he says "I'll be the first to say I'm probably wrong" so so again, anyone claiming it's some arrogant scientist claiming he's pretending he has the inside scoop to the truth either didn't watch or didn't understand it.
Again, one of the reasons I like his work...
Good scientists that make the big leaps don't adhere to absolutes in all but rare examples. They big thinkers (min 40-50 ish) are apparently even letting go of space-time as both the math and actual experiments suggest it's not the answer and why they have not come up with a unified theory.
And I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I actually watched that video last time it was posted and I think people weighed in for several pages.
I was simply addressing these ideas in general.
Yeah, it's a big one. Even with E=mc2 we were pretty sure on the math, but nobody was positive on the real world results until we actually did it. Einsteins math suggested black holes should exist, but it wasn't for sure until we actually found one.
Speaking of E=mc2, "the math" said black holes existed, but Einstein himself rejected them actually existing as well as rejecting quantum entanglement.
And I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I actually watched that video last time it was posted and I think people weighed in for several pages.
I was simply addressing these ideas in general.
Roger rgr.
Speaking of E=mc2, "the math" said black holes existed, but Einstein himself rejected them actually existing as well as rejecting quantum entanglement.
He predicted that they should exist, but wasn't convinced they actually did. That isn't the same as rejecting the idea that they exist.
He predicted that they should exist, but wasn't convinced they actually did. That isn't the same as rejecting the idea that they exist.
Not sure of there's a distinction there or not, but he did not believe black holes could exist in nature, and strongly rejected quantum entanglement and other outcomes in the quantum realm:
https://www.nature.com/news/2005/050328/full/050328-8.html
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/einstein-and-the-quantum/
Not sure of there's a distinction there or not, but he did not believe black holes could exist in nature, and strongly rejected quantum entanglement and other outcomes in the quantum realm:
https://www.nature.com/news/2005/050328/full/050328-8.html
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/einstein-and-the-quantum/
The distinction is this:
I'm not sure they exist.
They don't exist.
One is an absolute. Regarding quantum, we have to remember Einstein wrote his paper on relativity in 1915, that was cutting edge stuff back then. But Einstein didn't completely reject quantum, he actually wrote “On the Quantum Theory of Radiation” and a few others related to the subject. But at that time, our comprehension of QT wasn't anything close to what it would be even a few decades later. Bohr and Heisenberg laid the real groundwork allowing QT to be accepted as Quantum Physics in 1927.
The distinction is this:
I'm not sure they exist.
They don't exist.
One is an absolute. Regarding quantum, we have to remember Einstein wrote his paper on relativity in 1915, that was cutting edge stuff back then. But Einstein didn't completely reject quantum, he actually wrote “On the Quantum Theory of Radiation” and a few others related to the subject. But at that time, our comprehension of QT wasn't anything close to what it would be even a few decades later. Bohr and Heisenberg laid the real groundwork allowing QT to be accepted as Quantum Physics in 1927.
Then you and I have read different things on that one, and or, interpreted what we read differently.
Then you and I have read different things on that one, and or, interpreted what we read differently.
I think Einstein realized the math was telling him such things "should" exist, but he couldn't conceptualize them in reality so he arrived at "I'm not sure they actually exist" but stop short of saying "they don't actually exist."
We also have to remember in 1915 we understood so little, even Einstein, and our understanding of the universe just took a dramatic redefine that few people could actually even understand. It really wouldn't be until the end of the war, and a dramatic demonstration of matter converted to energy, that everyone finally accepted things that were discovered 30 years prior.
And it was only then that science took a dramatic new focus when the atomic age was declared. You have to think of it a bit like the industrial revolution where everyone else felt late to the game and raced to catch up. Before that most people, and a few scientists, treated all of this like the theoretical.
If you weren't involved in the Manhattan Project, it was a bit like string or membrane theory, really interesting ideas that may or may not be correct but it doesn't matter because we have no way of proving any of it anyway.
You and I were born after the atomic age when so many of these things were absolutes, we have to remember Einstein in context of when he lived, what he said and when. Einstein was a genius, and his greatest ability may have been to imagine a more correct model of the universe and attempt to define what it would look like.
But he didn't get everything correct, I don't even think that would have been possible. Like almost everyone else he assumed a steady state universe and kept having to adjust him findings to make them work with that model. This is his famous cosmological constant.
We also have to remember that while he predicted black holes would be a consequence of relativity, when he stated "but we will never find them" he was talking about direct observation of such an object being impossible in addition to black holes being a rarity should they actually exist. He imagined them as lightless pinholes in the middle of black space, he couldn't imagine how something like that could actually be observed even if we somehow looked right at one in a telescope.
But like most scientists, he was cautious of absolutes where the evidence was still a bit incomplete.
I think Einstein realized the math was telling him such things "should" exist, but he couldn't conceptualize them in reality so he arrived at "I'm not sure they actually exist" but stop short of saying "they don't actually exist."
We also have to remember in 1915 we understood so little, even Einstein, and our understanding of the universe just took a dramatic redefine that few people could actually even understand. It really wouldn't be until the end of the war, and a dramatic demonstration of matter converted to energy, that everyone finally accepted things that were discovered 30 years prior.
And it was only then that science took a dramatic new focus when the atomic age was declared. You have to think of it a bit like the industrial revolution where everyone else felt late to the game and raced to catch up. Before that most people, and a few scientists, treated all of this like the theoretical.
If you weren't involved in the Manhattan Project, it was a bit like string or membrane theory, really interesting ideas that may or may not be correct but it doesn't matter because we have no way of proving any of it anyway.
You and I were born after the atomic age when so many of these things were absolutes, we have to remember Einstein in context of when he lived, what he said and when. Einstein was a genius, and his greatest ability may have been to imagine a more correct model of the universe and attempt to define what it would look like.
But he didn't get everything correct, I don't even think that would have been possible. Like almost everyone else he assumed a steady state universe and kept having to adjust him findings to make them work with that model. This is his famous cosmological constant.
We also have to remember that while he predicted black holes would be a consequence of relativity, when he stated "but we will never find them" he was talking about direct observation of such an object being impossible in addition to black holes being a rarity should they actually exist. He imagined them as lightless pinholes in the middle of black space, he couldn't imagine how something like that could actually be observed even if we somehow looked right at one in a telescope.
But like most scientists, he was cautious of absolutes where the evidence was still a bit incomplete.
He argued multiple times they could not form in nature, I take that as "they don't actually exist" personally.
"In 1939 Einstein published a paper in the journal Annals of Mathematics with the daunting title On a Stationary System with Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses. With it, Einstein sought to prove that black holes--celestial objects so dense that their gravity prevents even light from escaping--were impossible."
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/einstein-and-the-quantum/
Far as I know, he never changed his mind on that one. Funny thing is, there's now some physicists who have come full circle and think black holes don't exist, at least not as the entities thought.
He argued multiple times they could not form in nature, I take that as "they don't actually exist" personally.
"In 1939 Einstein published a paper in the journal Annals of Mathematics with the daunting title On a Stationary System with Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses. With it, Einstein sought to prove that black holes--celestial objects so dense that their gravity prevents even light from escaping--were impossible."
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/einstein-and-the-quantum/
Far as I know, he never changed his mind on that one. Funny thing is, there's now some physicists who have come full circle and think black holes don't exist, at least not as the entities thought.
I have not read that paper, and while I have read a few things where he questioned if they actually existed and / or could even be detected IF they existed, that is the closest thing to an absolute that I've ever read. He was generally more cautious about such things.
I have not read that paper, and while I have read a few things where he questioned if they actually existed and / or could even be detected IF they existed, that is the closest thing to an absolute that I've ever read. He was generally more cautious about such things.
On black holes and quantum entanglement and other quantum topics, he seemed to dig his heels in. They went against his neat and tidy views of spacetime and were perhaps too bizzare or even his imagination. Apparently he and Niels Bohr in particular had and ongoing and running debate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates
My understanding, not being a brilliant physicist type, is Bohr won the debates but Einstein never capitulated defeat on the matter.
They always want one free miracle. Big Bang, positive mutations, faster than light travel, etc. Never makes any sense.
Not miracles. We just don't understand and/or cannot do it yet.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
The Alcubierre Warp Field
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHAaoTMrc3A
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a32449240/nasa-warp-drive-space-time/
Well, in short its the math. In two decades, researchers have confirmed the existence of more than 4,000 planets in our galaxy, a finding that suggests the cosmos packed with planets. Based on rate of discovery with known values of galaxies at around 2 trillion galaxies, each packed with millions of stars. Estimates place the numbers of planets waiting to be discovered at 100 quintillion. That's a one with 20 zeros...
Scientists think 20 percent of the 250 billion or so stars in the Milky Way harbor rocky worlds temperate enough to allow liquid water. This based on the Goldilocks Zone principal. Thats tens of billions of Goldilocks planets in our neighborhood alone.
SETI has a very logical reason we haven’t found anyone. Space is just too spacious. For all the searching, we haven’t looked much beyond our own neighborhood according to their website.
New study estimates the odds of life and intelligence emerging beyond our planet
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200518162639.htm
I'll just make a couple of comments here:
1. It always makes me chuckle when "scientists" postulate on the number of planets with life based on the type of planet and the time it took for life to evolve on earth. Seems like there is a lot of room for error there LOL. Did they consider that advanced beings may be spreading and nurturing life all over the universe like a garden?
2. SETI is a joke. They are looking for patterns in electro-magnetic radio waves? The approach is so 60's, and assumes that very powerful transmitters are sending data in our direction. This is why SETI has trouble raising money.
3. The question; Why would they come here to our way out planet in the middle of no where?....yada yada. We cannot know their motivations, nor can we understand all of their capabilities. We are using human thinking and human understanding to project why they are here....more human folly.
.......
Galaxywide space and time travel of course are completely different discussions. I think if we ever arrive at a "applicable" understanding of such things we will have discovered we were laughably wrong about most of our previous assumptions.
We have been laughably, ROFL level wrong.
I wasn't going to jump into this debate on God, but I feel compelled. People who believe in God (colloquial), have as much evidence of his existence as people who believe there is no God. I choose to believe.
• A Fact is verifiable.
• An Opinion is a judgment based on facts.
• A Belief is a conviction based on cultural or personal faith, morality, or values.
.
.
Anyway, I thought this was about aliens, (or time-travelers, if I had my way. LoL)
Close, but doesn't quite capture it. Unfortunately, judgements are biased, based on the beliefs and reasoning of the individual. Therefore, opinions are statements based on beliefs and biases often mixed with fallacious reasoning, and 'facts'. This renders opinions little better than beliefs unless they are subjected to rigorous scrutiny and debate. Otherwise, the NYT Opinion page would always be right, LOL
While this is a big step forward to the gubment admitting officially that there's something in our airspace the can't explain and it's not us (the US), I don't see an actual admittance of it from the above. The DOD did admit the vids from the planes were legit - which some took as meaning the objects in the vids were legit - but again, stopped well short of admitting to UFOs officially.
I will be very interested to see what it is they let out.
Except they didn't stop well short, They are disclosing slowly, but essentially disclosure has happened. It is well understood by academic sociologists and psychologists that people have a strong normalcy bias. Our minds tend to filter out the extremes in various amounts so that we don't panic/freakout and can continue to function. I believe the Government is taking advantage of this trait to release, in an ambiguous indirect way, to avoid disrupting our grasp on day to day reality (such as it is).
Its obvious, we are being told UFOs exist physically, and that they found the carburetor and a pile of alien trash in the desert somewhere....LOL.
I don't hear any spokesmen for the Pentagon coming out and denouncing ANY of the claims by former high level Government, people that their claims are a hoax. In fact, the Senate is crafting serious legislation around these reports. The Pentagon has engineered this release. Why now? I don't know.
Its right there in our faces!
For now they are avoiding the next, more disturbing, questions: Who is driving them? And what happened to their bodies when their craft crashed?
The Gov. could still at this point try to pull it all back, but its getting harder by the day.
The Government did say the UAP are truly unidentified phenomena.
Here-->https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2019/09/18/those-ufo-videos-are-real-navy-says-please-stop-saying-ufo/
And here is what Luis Elizondo said regarding the Nimitz encounter about the possibility they are ours.
“So, if that was the case and we actually were testing, routinely, these super, highly advanced aircraft in and around our own carrier group, without coordinating that movement, we would be so entirely dysfunctional that I fear we may…we would never win a war. So…no. There’s entire organizations on the joint staff and within the services that do nothing more than deconflict this type of activity. In fact we’re prohibited, many times, from flying these type of capabilities anywhere near anything else that we have because we don’t wanna risk something getting shot down or worse, something crashing. Or, endangering the lives of military maneuvers. So…no. I really, really, really doubt, it is certainly not one of ours. And if it happened one time, okay…maybe someone should be fired. But for this to happen over and over and over and over again? Over the course of two weeks? That is so improbable, I should go play the lottery right now."
Recently, I listened to Chris Mellon describe the mechanism the DOD uses to check each "stovepipe" for similar technology to avoid overlaps in testing and development. Unfortunately, I cannot find the video/podcast I listened to right now, but the gist of it was that the Pentagon has a system to avoid conflicts.
That doesn't rule out China or Russia developing the tech, but if China has to steal aircraft plans and technologies from us, I think its highly improbable they are engineered these craft. I doubt Russia has the capability either. Especially, from back in the 40's when UFOs became well documented.
Except they didn't stop well short, They are disclosing slowly, but essentially disclosure has happened. It is well understood by academic sociologists and psychologists that people have a strong normalcy bias. Our minds tend to filter out the extremes in various amounts so that we don't panic/freakout and can continue to function. I believe the Government is taking advantage of this trait to release, in an ambiguous indirect way, to avoid disrupting our grasp on day to day reality (such as it is).
Its obvious, we are being told UFOs exist physically, and that they found the carburetor and a pile of alien trash in the desert somewhere....LOL.
I don't hear any spokesmen for the Pentagon coming out and denouncing ANY of the claims by former high level Government, people that their claims are a hoax. In fact, the Senate is crafting serious legislation around these reports. The Pentagon has engineered this release. Why now? I don't know.
Its right there in our faces!
For now they are avoiding the next, more disturbing, questions: Who is driving them? And what happened to their bodies when their craft crashed?
The Gov. could still at this point try to pull it all back, but its getting harder by the day.
The Government did say the UAP are truly unidentified phenomena.
Here-->https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2019/09/18/those-ufo-videos-are-real-navy-says-please-stop-saying-ufo/
And here is what Luis Elizondo said regarding the Nimitz encounter about the possibility they are ours.
“So, if that was the case and we actually were testing, routinely, these super, highly advanced aircraft in and around our own carrier group, without coordinating that movement, we would be so entirely dysfunctional that I fear we may…we would never win a war. So…no. There’s entire organizations on the joint staff and within the services that do nothing more than deconflict this type of activity. In fact we’re prohibited, many times, from flying these type of capabilities anywhere near anything else that we have because we don’t wanna risk something getting shot down or worse, something crashing. Or, endangering the lives of military maneuvers. So…no. I really, really, really doubt, it is certainly not one of ours. And if it happened one time, okay…maybe someone should be fired. But for this to happen over and over and over and over again? Over the course of two weeks? That is so improbable, I should go play the lottery right now."
Recently, I listened to Chris Mellon describe the mechanism the DOD uses to check each "stovepipe" for similar technology to avoid overlaps in testing and development. Unfortunately, I cannot find the video/podcast I listened to right now, but the gist of it was that the Pentagon has a system to avoid conflicts.
That doesn't rule out China or Russia developing the tech, but if China has to steal aircraft plans and technologies from us, I think its highly improbable they are engineered these craft. I doubt Russia has the capability either. Especially, from back in the 40's when UFOs became well documented.
I have not seen or read anything that I take to be full disclosure to admission of UFOs but agree in that yes, they seem to be trickling out now ambiguous indirect ways that there's something in our airspace they know is there, have known where there a long time, and admit they too don't know what they are.
Going from total denial to full disclosure would be problematic for sure, to admitting those vids for example legit and indeed unexplained phenomena (which is not the same as full admission) to gauge responses and such seems logical to me.
Beyond that, it will be interesting to see what the final public admission and position will be.
I have not seen or read anything that I take to be full disclosure to admission of UFOs but agree in that yes, they seem to be trickling out now ambiguous indirect ways that there's something in our airspace they know is there, have known where there a long time, and admit they too don't know what they are.
Going from total denial to full disclosure would be problematic for sure, to admitting those vids for example legit and indeed unexplained phenomena (which is not the same as full admission) to gauge responses and such seems logical to me.
Beyond that, it will be interesting to see what the final public admission and position will be.
There won't be a public admission, until the public, news media, and politicians demand it. And that won't happen soon. The media is controlled. What the Government is doing now IS their public admission. Until people wake up it will be a slow drip.
Looking at the situation closely I cannot draw any other logical conclusion. These people are high level former Gov. people, they are trying to make the reality of the phenomena public without giving a green light to those who would divulge Black Projects or other secrets. They are coordinating with current government insiders (Luis Elizondo has confirmed this). There are factions in the Pentagon who oppose affirmation of UAP and factions who approve of it.
Why isn't the media pushing back on these stories, if they are bogus?
No serious denials from the Gov.
BTW there may very well be legal consequences for disclosure. Including illegal projects, intimidation of witnesses, perjury, and worse.
These seem to be the topics that keep coming up.
I try to remain skeptical, but this is the first time in 45+ years that there are logical steps being taken by credible people regarding the public discussion of UFOs and related issues. I've never seen anything like it.
There won't be a public admission, until the public, news media, and politicians demand it. And that won't happen soon. The media is controlled. What the Government is doing now IS their public admission. Until people wake up it will be a slow drip.
Looking at the situation closely I cannot draw any other logical conclusion. These people are high level former Gov. people, they are trying to make the reality of the phenomena public without giving a green light to those who would divulge Black Projects or other secrets. They are coordinating with current government insiders (Luis Elizondo has confirmed this). There are factions in the Pentagon who oppose affirmation of UAP and factions who approve of it.
Why isn't the media pushing back on these stories, if they are bogus?
No serious denials from the Gov.
BTW there may very well be legal consequences for disclosure. Including illegal projects, intimidation of witnesses, perjury, and worse.
These seem to be the topics that keep coming up.
I try to remain skeptical, but this is the first time in 45+ years that there are logical steps being taken by credible people regarding the public discussion of UFOs and related issues. I've never seen anything like it.
'Bout f-ing time too is what I say to that.
The release of information will be that the UFO's are, well, unidentified.
Business_Casual
08-10-20, 19:05
Don’t fall for the alien religion, boys.
Business_Casual
10-02-20, 06:23
A great read on this is “American Cosmic” by Pasulka.
If true, this is a real eye-opener on where things are headed with disclosure and the nature of extraterrestrials.
A great read on this is “American Cosmic” by Pasulka.
If true, this is a real eye-opener on where things are headed with disclosure and the nature of extraterrestrials.
Link?
I just want my laser gun and 6’3” Amazon alien girl with green anime hair in bikini armor and a pet Baby Yoda.
Business_Casual
10-02-20, 10:01
https://www.americancosmic.com/
Close, but doesn't quite capture it. Unfortunately, judgements are biased, based on the beliefs and reasoning of the individual. Therefore, opinions are statements based on beliefs and biases often mixed with fallacious reasoning, and 'facts'. This renders opinions little better than beliefs unless they are subjected to rigorous scrutiny and debate. Otherwise, the NYT Opinion page would always be right, LOL
Thanks for setting that straight.
And again I think we are back to extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence which "so far" we have not yet been given. We have a lot of unexplained data, but that is not evidence...at least not yet.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.