Do Aliens really exist ????

King Mob

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

Im pretty sure he doesnt know if they do or not.

Maybe we can do the same? Who knows?

I got into this subject through a search through the history of religions in a search for knowledge, what I discovered is that Shamanism, the spiritual use of plants is the basis for all modern religions 'the tree of knowledge'.

The interesting thing is, Shamans say they meet their teachers in other dimensions, and as far as I can tell, the top Freemasons use the same plants. Hidden knowledge? Shaman's knowledge of DNA is now being backed up by our western scientists.

Check it out! The book is called The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins
of Knowledge. You may also find it interesting to learn about the amount of Shaman tribes the American government have massacared.

So no actual evidence of other dimensions or aliens then? Just your biased interpretations of poorly researched history and images that "kinda sorta look like this."?

Smudgeyboy

King Mob wrote: »

So no actual evidence of other dimensions or aliens then? Just your biased interpretations of poorly researched history and images that "kinda sorta look like this."?

How am I bias exactly? How poor is my research compared to yours with your lack of arguement to anything?
You have done no research, though you have proven with your assumptions that any you do will be bias.

Im just a guy trying to figure out the world!

Why do we worship anything? Is there anything to be worshipped? What did Jesus/Muhammed/Shiva anybody have to say?

This is going off topic, I was trying to suggest you do your own research King Mob, with an open (but logical) mind.

King Mob

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

How am I bias exactly? How poor is my research compared to yours with your lack of arguement to anything?
You have done no research, though you have proven with your assumptions that any you do will be bias.

Im just a guy trying to figure out the world!

Why do we worship anything? Is there anything to be worshipped? What did Jesus/Muhammed/Shiva anybody have to say?

This is going off topic, I was trying to suggest you do your own research King Mob, with an open (but logical) mind.

Bised in that you started with the conclusion (shamanism rocks!) then cherry picked any "evidence" that fitted your conclusion disregarding everything that did not as a freemason conspiracy. But perhaps you can show some hard evidence that shamans knew about DNA and it's function?

How exactly does worshiping things prove there's parallel dimensions?

Shazbot

King Mob wrote: »

Bised in that you started with the conclusion (shamanism rocks!) then cherry picked any "evidence" that fitted your conclusion disregarding everything that did not as a freemason conspiracy. But perhaps you can show some hard evidence that shamans knew about DNA and it's function?

How exactly does worshiping things prove there's parallel dimensions?

Oh god, don't get him started on shamanism. There was a thread here a while ago about it. Any post on this forum he seems to reply back with shamanistic references. Afterall the shamans knew everything about everything right?

Here's the thread, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055391360&highlight=shaman

Basically his arguement was that some shaman went on a drug trip and pictured intertwining snakes. Then somehow came to the conclusion they must have known about the shape and function of DNA.

Pure crap.

Back on topic, I believe alien life exists. Not the crap spouted by some redneck with a piss poor picture of a UFO but rather small simple organisms eg bacteria.

Out of the endless planets out there, another one must support some form of life. May not be intelligent life but it's still life.

Smudgeyboy

Shazbot wrote: »

Oh god, don't get him started on shamanism. There was a thread here a while ago about it. Any post on this forum he seems to reply back with shamanistic references. Afterall the shamans knew everything about everything right?

Here's the thread, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055391360&highlight=shaman

Basically his arguement was that some shaman went on a drug trip and pictured intertwining snakes. Then somehow came to the conclusion they must have known about the shape and function of DNA.

Pure crap.

Back on topic, I believe alien life exists. Not the crap spouted by some redneck with a piss poor picture of a UFO but rather small simple organisms eg bacteria.

Out of the endless planets out there, another one must support some form of life. May not be intelligent life but it's still life.

'We dont know what he's talking about, discredit the suggestions, throw rocks, booo!'
You guys dont even know your own heritage.

Shazbot

Smudgeyboy wrote: »

'We dont know what he's talking about, discredit the suggestions, throw rocks, booo!'

We simply as for proof of what your talking about. After all, you barely know what your talking about. The DNA/shaman angle is what I'm refering to.
Shamanism isn't the answer to all lifes questions despite how much you want it to be

You guys dont even know your own heritage.

Care to tell us then? Oh, without refering to the writings of some drugged up shaman elder. I really don't think you can do it.

No point dwelling on our past heritage. It would make more sense to live in the present and plan for the future.

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

Because ancedotal evidence is always right! People never lie or be crazy or stupid and certainly people are never mistaken about what they see in the night sky.

I'm sure you haven't read up on the whole phenomenon... Eyewitness evidence is not always correct, but there are many reports from credible witnesses. Rendlesham forest? How about the book by John Mack, Harvard professor of psychiatry - "Abduction"? He has conducted extensive research into alien abduction and was convinced it is real.

King Mob wrote: »

You mean the leap in propulsion due to the jet engine and hybrid fuel and multistage rockets? Because it would have too impossible for human to design anything.

No, I'm speaking of the massive leap from those methods of propulsion to the methods of propulsion displayed by these UFO's. Anti-gravity propulsion, or at the very least electrostatic lift. Read "the Hunt for Zero Point" by Nick Cook.

King Mob wrote: »

And what evidence from the roswell conspiracy? The US was monitoring Russian nuke tests or that civilian can't identify a crashed hi-altitude balloon?

hehe.. you might start by reading Stanton Friedman's book on Roswell. Or maybe Phil J. Corso's book "The Day After Roswell". Hell, even watch the Roswell movie and you'd be able to demonstrate more knowledge on the subject.

King Mob wrote: »

Complete speculation! Most species on earth do not use light detecting sense organs.

Really? Even starfish and jellyfish have light sensing organs.. can you link me something that breaks the % of species with light sensing organs vs. % without?

Kernel

Tony Broke wrote: »

So you believe in some sort of cover up in tech?

Undoubtedly. I don't believe it, I'm 100% certain of it. The huge amount of black silent triangles appearing all over the world are terrestrial in origin in my opinion. Check out some of the Nick Cook documentaries online, or buy his book as I mentioned.

Tony Broke wrote: »

But do you then believe that that the US or who ever has any possibility of shooting down a UFO Craft that moves at the speed of light? Usually, all known footage of UFOs show a craft dissapear within our eyes and we hear all these stories of fighter pilots been told to engage on them.Why?

US pilots have died trying to engage UFO's. I'm not sure that there is an order to shoot them down - in fact I would disagree with this, however, if such a policy were in place then it could simply be explained as black ops project to which the USAF are not aware of. In the early days of these craft (when there was a policy of engagement) during the cold war, an unidentified blip appeared on a radar, and was verified visually. In this situation, if I was in charge of an airbase then I would order an engagement because there is a violation of airspace.

Shazbot

Kernel wrote: »

Really? Even starfish and jellyfish have light sensing organs.. can you link me something that breaks the % of species with light sensing organs vs. % without?

All bacteria don't have light sensing organs and the number of bacterial species is so large that it can't even be accurately estimated. More than any other phylum or genus on the planet. Is that enough to convince you or will it take more irrational logic to do the job?

Undoubtedly. I don't believe it, I'm 100% certain of it. The huge amount of black silent triangles appearing all over the world are terrestrial in origin in my opinion. Check out some of the Nick Cook documentaries online, or buy his book as I mentioned.

Why is it when ever a conspiracy theoriest is questioned on prove they always tell you to read X's or Y's book?

These books are created to satify your theories with pure bull**** logic. They have their target audience (guillible fools) and sucessfully market their product.

Their books should not be taken as the bible. Hell the bible has more fact in it than some of these books.

US pilots have died trying to engage UFO's

Proof please.

if I was in charge of an airbase

Thank god this will never happen. All the resources would be wasted on chasing UFO's and trying to steal their anti-gravity propulsion system.

Kernel

Shazbot wrote: »

All bacteria don't have light sensing organs and the number of bacterial species is so large that it can't even be accurately estimated. More than any other phylum or genus on the planet. Is that enough to convince you or will it take more irrational logic to do the job?

Right. So you're suggesting that bacteria are the aliens flying the advanced propulsion systems as speculated by the poster I replied to? :rolleyes:

Shazbot wrote: »

Why is it when ever a conspiracy theoriest is questioned on prove they always tell you to read X's or Y's book?

Because books contain knowledge and information maybe? Read the books before you launch into your tirade please. When you are informed on the books, then we can debate on them.

Shazbot wrote: »

Proof please.

Again, I'd suggest researching a little into the subject, but try this one for a starter.


http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc180.htm

People shouldn't rubbish things they know little about, unless they are trolling of course.

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

Right. So you're suggesting that bacteria are the aliens flying the advanced propulsion systems as speculated by the poster I replied to? :rolleyes:

No you said most life on Earth sensed light. This isn't true.

Kernel wrote: »

Because books contain knowledge and information maybe? Read the books before you launch into your tirade please. When you are informed on the books, then we can debate on them.

Books can also contain bad evidence and faulty logic, which you are reproducing here. You certainly don't need to read a book on UFOs to know how to identify logical fallacies though those books tend to be good practice.

Shazbot

Kernel wrote: »

Right. So you're suggesting that bacteria are the aliens flying the advanced propulsion systems as speculated by the poster I replied to? :rolleyes:

Sigh* Typical conspiracy theorist bull**** and missinterpretation. You asked for a ratio of species with to without light sensing organs. You tried to be smart and suggest the number with light sensing organs outweighted the without light sensing organs. I simply corrected you.

You then jumped to the rediculous conclusion that i think bacteria fly UFO's.

You see the fault in your logic?

Because books contain knowledge and information maybe? Read the books before you launch into your tirade please. When you are informed on the books, then we can debate on them.

As I said, they have there target audience, suceptible fools, and they exploit that market. They write what you want to read, not what is true.

Again, I'd suggest researching a little into the subject, but try this one for a starter.


http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc180.htm

People shouldn't rubbish things they know little about, unless they are trolling of course.

Troll? I assure you I'm not, now stick to the facts at hand. Misdirection is an all to common trait used around here. Don't dismiss me as a troll because i don't buy the bull**** you obviously do.

Kernel

Shazbot wrote: »

Sigh* Typical conspiracy theorist bull**** and missinterpretation. You asked for a ratio of species with to without light sensing organs. You tried to be smart and suggest the number with light sensing organs outweighted the without light sensing organs. I simply corrected you.

You then jumped to the rediculous conclusion that i think bacteria fly UFO's.

You see the fault in your logic?

I said most creatures. I was obviously referring to evolved creatures, not backteria, viruses, germs etc. as the context of the discussion was on alien visitation. Such visitation could only come from advanced evolved life forms.

Shazbot wrote: »

As I said, they have there target audience, suceptible fools, and they exploit that market. They write what you want to read, not what is true.

There's no point debating on this, since you haven't read the books and are unprepared to do so. Dismissing their content without even bothering to read them shows ignorance. You've not read up on the topic which you are ignorantly ridiculing. It reflects badly on you tbh.

Shazbot wrote: »

Troll? I assure you I'm not, now stick to the facts at hand. Misdirection is an all to common trait used around here. Don't dismiss me as a troll because i don't buy the bull**** you obviously do.

Prove to me it's bull****. Hell, read up slightly on the topic before you even attempt to debunk it. :rolleyes:

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

Books can also contain bad evidence and faulty logic, which you are reproducing here. You certainly don't need to read a book on UFOs to know how to identify logical fallacies though those books tend to be good practice.

Have you read the books I mentioned? If so, where are the flaws? Typical pseudo-skeptics conveniently ignoring many points from my post. Is Prof. John Mack's logic flawed?

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

Have you read the books I mentioned? If so, where are the flaws? Typical pseudo-skeptics conveniently ignoring many points from my post. Is Prof. John Mack's logic flawed?

I haven't read it nor am i likely to read it. Just as you are unlikely to read any books on skepticism.

I don't know for certain if John Mack's logic is flawed I haven't read his work. However if your logic is anything like his I'd be betting no it being flawed.


To address your points: there is no reason what so ever to believe that any life in the universe has light sensing organs. Contrary to what you stated most species on Earth do not have light sensing organs and that it is infact a fallacy to assume that "advanced" organisms would need them. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIB2Notladders.shtml


And as a side note, you're the claimant, the burden of proof is yours. You have to prove it's not bull****.

Shazbot

Kernel wrote: »

There's no point debating on this, since you haven't read the books and are unprepared to do so. Dismissing their content without even bothering to read them shows ignorance. You've not read up on the topic which you are ignorantly ridiculing. It reflects badly on you tbh.

I have no intent to read fiction and then accept it as fact. You clearly have no problem with it so enjoy your delusion.

Prove to me it's bull****. Hell, read up slightly on the topic before you even attempt to debunk it. :rolleyes:

It's your theory, you prove to me its not just that. The idea of a theory is to go through the evidence to prove it. Otherwise it still remains a theory. So you can throw all your novels and redneck sightings out the window. The fact remains it's your theory, you prove it. Don't ask me for proof against it.

And by proof, i mean repetitive evidence that can be repeated by independant groups. Not just one person and their story.

Kernel

Shazbot wrote: »

I have no intent to read fiction and then accept it as fact. You clearly have no problem with it so enjoy your delusion.

The books I have mentioned are all either from primary sources (research carried out by Mack for example) or are referencing secondary sources which you can check. You're ignorant if you simply dismiss these books without even bothering to read them or check them out.

Shazbot wrote: »

It's your theory, you prove to me its not just that. The idea of a theory is to go through the evidence to prove it. Otherwise it still remains a theory. So you can throw all your novels and redneck sightings out the window. The fact remains it's your theory, you prove it. Don't ask me for proof against it.

I couldn't be arsed trying to prove anything to someone who is too lazy to even read up on the subject. Better things to do with my time I'm afraid. I've given people on the forums some ways to enlighten themselves on the subject, in that way I'm contributing to this forum. Are you? If I was to be pedantic, I would suggest that your theory is that the books are bull****, therefore the burden of proof falls on you to prove that statement.

Shazbot wrote: »

And by proof, i mean repetitive evidence that can be repeated by independant groups. Not just one person and their story.

That may be difficult seeing as Corso's book was his own testimony and he is dead now. Prof. Mack is also dead, but his scientific studies remain presented as they are (although you wont bother to read them...).

Didn't bother reply to you King Mob, as your points are essentially the same, and as such, so is my reply. The light sensing organs point you have latched onto disregards my earlier point about obviously referring to evolved creatures, since germs, bacteria and microbes would be unlikely pilots of interstellar craft.

Shazbot

Kernel wrote: »

The books I have mentioned are all either from primary sources (research carried out by Mack for example) or are referencing secondary sources which you can check. You're ignorant if you simply dismiss these books without even bothering to read them or check them out.

Again, books of fiction. Care to link me to the first research paper published by Mack? Has his work been repeated?

I couldn't be arsed trying to prove anything to someone who is too lazy to even read up on the subject. Better things to do with my time I'm afraid. I've given people on the forums some ways to enlighten themselves on the subject, in that way I'm contributing to this forum. Are you? If I was to be pedantic, I would suggest that your theory is that the books are bull****, therefore the burden of proof falls on you to prove that statement.

The proof for my statement is really obvious. It's the fact that the theory remains exactly that. If I was wrong it would be considered fact and not a theory. The onus is on you to convince me, with scientific proof, that these UFO's exist. Not the ramblings of untrustworthy people who claim to have seen them. Also, don't start reference novels. Again, they are written by people looking to make cash, not solve the mysteries.

That may be difficult seeing as Corso's book was his own testimony and he is dead now. Prof. Mack is also dead, but his scientific studies remain presented as they are (although you wont bother to read them...).

As i said, has his work been repeated by independent groups and if so, have the results stayed the same? Otherwise its all crap.

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

The books I have mentioned are all either from primary sources (research carried out by Mack for example) or are referencing secondary sources which you can check. You're ignorant if you simply dismiss these books without even bothering to read them or check them out.

Out of interest what skeptical books have you read?

Kernel wrote: »

Didn't bother reply to you King Mob, as your points are essentially the same, and as such, so is my reply. The light sensing organs point you have latched onto disregards my earlier point about obviously referring to evolved creatures, since germs, bacteria and microbes would be unlikely pilots of interstellar craft.

Yes, but contrary to what you had said most life on earth does not have eyes. Also there are no "more evolved and less evolved" species. All species do not follow the same path, bacteria will not necessarily evolve eyes because the "more evolved" animals have them.
Thus there is no reason to assume that aliens have eyes.

Kernel

Shazbot wrote: »

Again, books of fiction. Care to link me to the first research paper published by Mack? Has his work been repeated?

Get in touch with these people if you want to read Mack's papers.

http://www.johnemackinstitute.org/center/center_news.asp?id=259

Shazbot wrote: »

Not the ramblings of untrustworthy people who claim to have seen them. Also, don't start reference novels. Again, they are written by people looking to make cash, not solve the mysteries.

Your claims are getting worse. First of all, how you can suggest that a Harvard professor and a US Army Colonel are untrustworthy I do not comprehend. Secondly, you're making a huge assumption that these people are only interested in making money rather than solving the mysteries. Can you back up that claim? No, you can't. Yet I'm constantly asked for basic proofs. A huge number of people have witnessed UFO's. The Drake equation and mainstream science now accepts that highly evolved life forms (no, not bacteria or germs.....) exist throughout the universe.

king mob wrote:

Out of interest what skeptical books have you read?

In which field? Richard Dawkins? Derren Brown? Martin Reese? How about J. Allen Hynek? Oh wait, he was a skeptic until he saw sense.

king mob wrote:

Yes, but contrary to what you had said most life on earth does not have eyes. Also there are no "more evolved and less evolved" species. All species do not follow the same path, bacteria will not necessarily evolve eyes because the "more evolved" animals have them.
Thus there is no reason to assume that aliens have eyes.

Look, I'm not going to say this again, maybe this time you will get it: I said most creatures on earth have light sensing organs. In the context of evolved creatures who would be capable of visiting the earth. Not bacteria, not simple organisms. And yes, there are more evolved species. There are species which have evolved adequately to their environment, sure. But there are also species which have evolved into more advanced organisms, like humans. Who are capable of higher reasoning.

It's obvious to me and others that you two haven't a notion of the subject. I'd read up on it more before further exposing yourselves. I tried to be helpful and point you in the right direction, but you'd rather bicker here than gain more knowledge. So what's left for me to do? The day will come when mankind will know the truth, and on that day you will feel foolish.

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

A huge number of people have witnessed UFO's. The Drake equation and mainstream science now accepts that highly evolved life forms (no, not bacteria or germs.....) exist throughout the universe.

No it doesn't. The drake equation is nowhere near solved by the way, at least half of the variables are still unknown. The is no evidence of any intelligent life in the universe. A claim like that needs a bit more evidence than unverifiable eyewitness reports.

Kernel wrote: »

In which field? Richard Dawkins? Derren Brown? Martin Reese? How about J. Allen Hynek? Oh wait, he was a skeptic until he saw sense.

So using logic and reason to evaluate claims in non-nonsensical?
Any books critical of ufo research?

Kernel wrote: »

Look, I'm not going to say this again, maybe this time you will get it: I said most creatures on earth have light sensing organs. In the context of evolved creatures who would be capable of visiting the earth. Not bacteria, not simple organisms. And yes, there are more evolved species. There are species which have evolved adequately to their environment, sure. But there are also species which have evolved into more advanced organisms, like humans. Who are capable of higher reasoning.

One animal isn't "more evolved" than another, perhaps more complicated but not more evolved.
How is that you can speculate on an organism you have never examined let alone even know exists?

Kernel wrote: »

It's obvious to me and others that you two haven't a notion of the subject. I'd read up on it more before further exposing yourselves. I tried to be helpful and point you in the right direction, but you'd rather bicker here than gain more knowledge. So what's left for me to do? The day will come when mankind will know the truth, and on that day you will feel foolish.

"I'll show them all HAHAHA <thunderclap>"
I don't see how we need to read a book on ufo to identify poor logic and bad evidence.

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

One animal isn't "more evolved" than another, perhaps more complicated but not more evolved.

Nonsense. More complicated organisms have evolved more by definition.

King Mob wrote: »

I don't see how we need to read a book on ufo to identify poor logic and bad evidence.

Fine, continue to talk crap about the books you don't know about then, I suppose it's amusing in a way... :rolleyes:

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

Nonsense. More complicated organisms have evolved more by definition.

Actually it's not http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html

Kernel wrote: »

Fine, continue to talk crap about the books you don't know about then, I suppose it's amusing in a way... :rolleyes:

Ok then, why not present the best most logic evidence in these books?

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

The Drake equation and mainstream science now accepts that highly evolved life forms (no, not bacteria or germs.....) exist throughout the universe.

"Mainstream science" accepts no such thing. Individual scientists may accept it, but if they are both competent and honest they would admit to it being acceptance based on personal belief, rather than on science.

The Drake equation attempts to calculate the odds that civilisations may exist close enough for us to have contact with. The likelihood of it being so is dependant on a number of parameters for which we have nothing but speculative values.

The Drake Equation, incidentally, is non-testable. This is why it remains an equation (which it obviously is) rather than theory, postulate, or somsuch. It is, therefore, non-scientific in nature.

It's obvious to me and others that you two haven't a notion of the subject. I'd read up on it more before further exposing yourselves. I tried to be helpful and point you in the right direction, but you'd rather bicker here than gain more knowledge.

What you call bickering, I'd call critiquing the argument you presented here.

So what's left for me to do?

Present a better argument?

The day will come when mankind will know the truth, and on that day you will feel foolish.

By asserting surity on such an issue, I would argue that you may have beaten him to the foolishness post there.

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

Fine, continue to talk crap about the books you don't know about then, I suppose it's amusing in a way... :rolleyes:

For someone strangely reluctant to name the books they have read which are critical of the stance they have taken.....a pot and a kettle spring to mind.

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

Actually it's not http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html

Do you think an amoeba is as evolved an organism as a human?

King Mob wrote: »

Ok then, why not present the best most logic evidence in these books?

Because it would take me days/weeks to research through the books, identify and disseminate the relevent data and present it as a huge post. I've considered it and I don't have enough time to do this huge topic justice. You want me to cover UFO sightings throughout history, close encounters, evolutionary theory, physics, alien abduction and the Roswell conspiracy in one post??? If you want the information then I've pointed you to the books. Read them if it's something you want to know more about.

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

Do you think an amoeba is as evolved an organism as a human?

Modern ones, yes, they are as evolved as every other modern species. There is no hierarchy or ladder of evolution. Humans are certainly not the pinnacle of evolution. Apes (or any other animal) will probably not evolve to become more human like. And the is no evidence that human-like intelligence is the end product of evolution.
This is kinda explained in the article I linked and in a few others on that site.
Or did you even read it?

Kernel wrote: »

Because it would take me days/weeks to research through the books, identify and disseminate the relevent data and present it as a huge post. I've considered it and I don't have enough time to do this huge topic justice. You want me to cover UFO sightings throughout history, close encounters, evolutionary theory, physics, alien abduction and the Roswell conspiracy in one post??? If you want the information then I've pointed you to the books. Read them if it's something you want to know more about.

Well the thing is these claims have been going around for a while and have been covered by many skeptics.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4124
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4079

And i have read many articles on the web about these subjects. So to suggest I know nothing about the subject is disingenuous.

But perhaps you can supply, from these books, one piece of solid verifiable evidence, that has been scientifically evaluated to remove the possibility of fraud, incompetence, psychological factors, bad reporting and interference of someones personal belief on the evidence?
And can you point out in the links I provided the flaw in the logic, reasoning or evidence that shows that "aliens" are a more logical conclusion?
And please don't accuse anyone of being in a conspiracy unless you have solid proof.

Mahatma coat

I saw a UFO once when I was a kid, very cool, jusy zipped about in the sky for a bit and then disappeared really fast.

twould have been about 1993 over Wexford

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

Modern ones, yes, they are as evolved as every other modern species. There is no hierarchy or ladder of evolution. Humans are certainly not the pinnacle of evolution. Apes (or any other animal) will probably not evolve to become more human like. And the is no evidence that human-like intelligence is the end product of evolution.
This is kinda explained in the article I linked and in a few others on that site.
Or did you even read it?

I have read the article, and I don't agree that it's logical to suggest that a complex organism (that has evolved as such) is as evolved as a simple organism such as an amoeba. It's illogical in the face of Darwin's theory of evolution that apes would not evolve further, as the whole concept of natural selection indicates that evolution is an ongoing process in which a species will change and adapt to suit their environment. The stronger mutations of the apes in terms of suitability to a changing environment would flourish more, and thus another step in evolution.

King Mob wrote: »

Well the thing is these claims have been going around for a while and have been covered by many skeptics.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4124
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4079

Those articles are one sided rubbish. Describing Stanton Friedman as a UFO loon... :rolleyes: Hardly balanced is it? The article on Roswell is terrible! Reiterating the official government story doesn't serve to dispell the evidence of a conspiracy.

King Mob wrote: »

And i have read many articles on the web about these subjects. So to suggest I know nothing about the subject is disingenuous.

You've demonstrated a lack of knowledge on the subject.

King Mob wrote: »

But perhaps you can supply, from these books, one piece of solid verifiable evidence, that has been scientifically evaluated to remove the possibility of fraud, incompetence, psychological factors, bad reporting and interference of someones personal belief on the evidence?

Explain the UFO incident in which several ICBM's were disabled by a UFO as discussed a while back on Larry King Live:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Plzo0rECew

trentf

do aliens exist? this whole question is dated. aliens do exist and they aren't aliens at all really...

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

I have read the article, and I don't agree that it's logical to suggest that a complex organism (that has evolved as such) is as evolved as a simple organism such as an amoeba. It's illogical in the face of Darwin's theory of evolution that apes would not evolve further, as the whole concept of natural selection indicates that evolution is an ongoing process in which a species will change and adapt to suit their environment. The stronger mutations of the apes in terms of suitability to a changing environment would flourish more, and thus another step in evolution.

Humans are more complex but not more evolved than any other species. It is a misconception to believe we are higher on a ladder than other species simply because evolution isn't a singular ladder or path.
I didn't say apes wouldn't evolve further, I said they probably would become more human like or develop more human-like intelligence.

Kernel wrote: »

Those articles are one sided rubbish. Describing Stanton Friedman as a UFO loon... :rolleyes: Hardly balanced is it? The article on Roswell is terrible! Reiterating the official government story doesn't serve to dispell the evidence of a conspiracy.

And care to point out the logical flaws in either of those articles (and not the fact it doesn't automatically assume a government conspiracy)? Or have the evidence they say are lacking?

So then these ufo books you recommend are not "one sided rubbish"?

Kernel wrote: »

You've demonstrated a lack of knowledge on the subject.

How so?

Kernel wrote: »

Explain the UFO incident in which several ICBM's were disabled by a UFO as discussed a while back on Larry King Live:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Plzo0rECew

So have they any other evidence other than the testimony of ufo enthusiasts of an incident 30+ years ago?

And trust me Larry King isn't exactly known for his critical thinking.

DubTony

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I saw a UFO once when I was a kid, very cool, jusy zipped about in the sky for a bit and then disappeared really fast.

twould have been about 1993 over Wexford

Would that have been just after this happened?

from
http://www.ufoinfo.com/humanoid/humanoid1993.shtml

31.
Location. County Wexford, Ireland
Date: February 28 1993
Time: morning
A woman walking alone on a country road heard an odd sound coming from a nearby ditch at the edge of a field. She went over to look and there she saw a little woman about 2-foot tall with long red hair, she was trying to pick up a smooth stone which was wedged in the ditch. The woman was wearing a purple outfit and had what appeared to be two raven feathers on her head. The witness approached and could see that the little woman was struggling with the stone. The little woman suddenly noticed the witness and disappeared in plain sight.

shayser

These kids believed. For a few hours, anyway.

Or maybe longer?

http://www.harrowobserver.co.uk/west-london-news/local-harrow-news/2008/09/18/police-investigate-school-s-alien-invasion-116451-21847932/
http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/localnews/3829373.Aliens_land_in_Wyke_Regis/

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

So have they any other evidence other than the testimony of ufo enthusiasts of an incident 30+ years ago?

And trust me Larry King isn't exactly known for his critical thinking.

Bah! The standard rubbish argument of the skeptic. Someone interested in the UFO phenomenon is known as a UFO nut/enthusiast and therefore their testimony or research is worthless. No point in arguing with you people, you're entrenched firmly in your world view. If you want to know more, read the books. You're not in the slightest bit interested in any aspect of conspiracy theories or ufology apart from the narrow sighted agenda of debunking.

You would have been inexorably touting the swamp gas explanation a couple of decades ago.

Kernel

shayser wrote: »

These kids believed. For a few hours, anyway.

Or maybe longer?

http://www.harrowobserver.co.uk/west-london-news/local-harrow-news/2008/09/18/police-investigate-school-s-alien-invasion-116451-21847932/
http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/localnews/3829373.Aliens_land_in_Wyke_Regis/

Ah, a light hearted story about the 'little green men'. I've never seen that thrown in at the end of a mainstream 'report' on the topic.... honest!

toiletduck

Kernel wrote: »

You would have been inexorably touting the swamp gas explanation a couple of decades ago.

Nothing wrong with seeking explanations for UFOs.

I think one of the major problems as I see it with the idea that we are being visited (a lot if you believe only a percentage of the reports!) is how come astronomers are never the ones to report them? I mean given the nature of their job/pasttime, they should be the most prolific witnesses but alas no. Is it because they're in on the conspiracy, that for some reason they haven't seen the ships or that they recognise "swamp gas"* illusions and are trained to do so?



*I'm using this to cover all related phenomena :pac:

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

Bah! The standard rubbish argument of the skeptic. Someone interested in the UFO phenomenon is known as a UFO nut/enthusiast and therefore their testimony or research is worthless. No point in arguing with you people, you're entrenched firmly in your world view. If you want to know more, read the books. You're not in the slightest bit interested in any aspect of conspiracy theories or ufology apart from the narrow sighted agenda of debunking.

You would have been inexorably touting the swamp gas explanation a couple of decades ago.

So asking to back something up with evidence is standard rubbish?
Can I assume that you have no such evidence to back up their claims?

Anyone who has a vested interest in UFOs and are claiming they saw one are making very extraordinary claims (and claiming seeing one take out nukes are even more extraordinary). And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Simple testimony is not very extraordinary as it does not remove the possibility of deception, mistaken phenomenon, mental illness and many, many other factors that make it fairly worthless.

You have done little "to unentrench me me form my worldview."
I've heard lots of testimony and accusations of conspiracy, and not one stands up to critical inquiry.

DenMan

So say we are the only species in the Universe is incredibly arrogant imo. If life evolved here than why not elsewhere? In fact we are aliens ourselves as life here originated in space as minute micro-organisms from falling meteorites crashed here billions of years ago.

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

Anyone who has a vested interest in UFOs and are claiming they saw one are making very extraordinary claims (and claiming seeing one take out nukes are even more extraordinary). And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Simple testimony is not very extraordinary as it does not remove the possibility of deception, mistaken phenomenon, mental illness and many, many other factors that make it fairly worthless.

Yeah, but I was simply probing you by putting up that piece, with the testimony of those involved, and video evidence. All of which you've dismissed with the standard ****e argument, which proves to me that you are here for the purposes of debate from your own entrenched viewpoint, and are unwilling to accept any evidence. Ergo, debating with you would be a waste of my time. I know it can be fun sometimes, debating, using logic to outdo your opponent etc. But that's not why I post here, and I haven't time to engage in it unless there is some chance of convincing that person by pointing to evidence. You don't even want to read up on this, so why waste my breath?

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

Yeah, but I was simply probing you by putting up that piece, with the testimony of those involved, and video evidence. All of which you've dismissed with the standard ****e argument, which proves to me that you are here for the purposes of debate from your own entrenched viewpoint, and are unwilling to accept any evidence. Ergo, debating with you would be a waste of my time. I know it can be fun sometimes, debating, using logic to outdo your opponent etc. But that's not why I post here, and I haven't time to engage in it unless there is some chance of convincing that person by pointing to evidence. You don't even want to read up on this, so why waste my breath?

Actually that piece had no video evidence, the image of the ufo flying around the nuke was in fact an animated simulation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJoamChmrjo&feature=related

I didn't dismiss the testimony outright, I asked for it to be backed up with solid evidence which you apparently can't do.
Can you really blame me for not accepting far fetched unsupported testimony?
Tell me have you ever considered that maybe you are wrong?

Kernel

Yes, I have considered it. Have you? BTW - the youtube link you posted is not the same as the footage used on Larry King Live.

How about the Belgian UFO sighting, confirmed by radar and F16s?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=87gsDrWAdA0

The O'Hare UFO sighting? No evidence apart from witness testimony.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zymfy2dFcwg&feature=related

Phoenix lights (flares I suppose you'll say)?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GLUAhVkGmj0

Rendlesham? sure that was probably just a lighthouse and the lads were suffering mass delusions.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Te-rEW7upe0

Hell, just go to www.disclosureproject.org and debunk everything there. Or maybe start debunking quantum physics, not a lot of hard evidence for much of that either.

Kernel

To anybody not interested in reading books, but interested in videos, or interested in the subject; try checking out these:

Billion Dollar Secret:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3975546396136405829&ei=mysXScj-CKf62wLKjdxA&q=nick+cook

More Nick Cook:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-834605691449249469&hl=en

Out of the Blue:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5545276251937701731&ei=XSwXSe2uNabU2gLEhtDGDQ&q=out+of+the+blue&hl=en

Disclosure Project:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1166743665260900218&ei=PiwXSYqMDqbU2gLEhtDGDQ&q=disclosure+project&hl=en

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

Yes, I have considered it. Have you?

Yes, but it'll take more than shakey evidence and bad logic to change my mind.

Kernel wrote: »

BTW - the youtube link you posted is not the same as the footage used on Larry King Live.

Looks very similar. Is it then the footage that was confiscated by the airforce?

Kernel wrote: »

How about the Belgian UFO sighting, confirmed by radar and F16s?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=87gsDrWAdA0

Dunno, not an expert on radar. What evidence is there that it's alien in nature?

Kernel wrote: »

The O'Hare UFO sighting? No evidence apart from witness testimony.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zymfy2dFcwg&feature=related

Because people never mistake anything they see in the sky?

Kernel wrote: »

Phoenix lights (flares I suppose you'll say)?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GLUAhVkGmj0

Maybe because they where? http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4041
What evidence shows they are not?

Kernel wrote: »

Rendlesham? sure that was probably just a lighthouse and the lads were suffering mass delusions.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Te-rEW7upe0

Dunno, wasn't there. But isn't a lighthouse and mass delusion a hell of a alot more likely than Aliens?

Kernel wrote: »

Hell, just go to www.disclosureproject.org and debunk everything there.

And debunk what exactly? That alot of people mistake and misunderstand stuff in the sky? That the airforce wasted alot of time documenting them? Or that armed forces have classified files? You need to be more specific.

Kernel wrote: »

Or maybe start debunking quantum physics, not a lot of hard evidence for much of that either.

You mean the tons of empirical, testable mathematical evidence and the years of empirical, testable experimental evidence? Or the years of research backed up by the experiments and math?

Are you suggesting Quantum Mechanics doesn't exist?

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

Or maybe start debunking quantum physics, not a lot of hard evidence for much of that either.

Its a pity your knowledge of quantum physics isn't at the same level as your knowledge of various conspiracy theories.

Keith186

I wouldn't believe in aliens unless I witnessed direct evidence myself.

Yes there's some evidence and accounts of UFO's flying about but lets be honest, if it was good proper evidence it would be worldwide headline news.

The fact that a good few wackos are usually involved doesn't help the Yes side.

Kernel

You pseudo-skeptics have a strange pathological similarity. I guess Copernicus thought the same when the skeptics went against him. (cue the logic, mathematics, empirical proof spiel).

Anyway, QED King Mob, you'd be a waste of my time to try to convince.

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

You pseudo-skeptics have a strange pathological similarity. I guess Copernicus thought the same when the skeptics went against him. (cue the logic, mathematics, empirical proof spiel).

No spiel. I'll just point you at my sig.

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

You pseudo-skeptics have a strange pathological similarity. I guess Copernicus thought the same when the skeptics went against him. (cue the logic, mathematics, empirical proof spiel).

You mean how Copernicus's theories were based on empirical observation then later backed up by empirical evidence and repeatable experiment? The things you fail to provide?

Kernel wrote: »

Anyway, QED King Mob, you'd be a waste of my time to try to convince.

Oh so you were trying to convince people who already had a firm belief in alien visitation and were unlike to critically evaluate your claims.
No wonder you weren't supplying decent evidence or using good logic.

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

You mean how Copernicus's theories were based on empirical observation then later backed up by empirical evidence and repeatable experiment? The things you fail to provide?

You see how I can predict your robotic responses? You can't resist it.

King Mob wrote: »

Oh so you were trying to convince people who already had a firm belief in alien visitation and were unlike to critically evaluate your claims.
No wonder you weren't supplying decent evidence or using good logic.

I'm sharing information with those who are interested in it. You are not interested, so why not run along to the skeptics forum? Are you Diogenes? You remind me of him, but then, you're all so alike.

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

You see how I can predict your robotic responses?

Its amazing. Its almost as though you knew the flaws in your own argument, yet somehow think that by saying "and look, someone will point them out" you'll distract people from it.

I'm sharing information with those who are interested in it.

Seems to me that this is what KM is doing as well.

Why is it that so many of you conspiracy-believing types get so aggrieved that people want to make sure that both sides of a story get heard?