354 replies to this topic

[cormac mac airt]

nopeda, on 16 January 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

Considering that they could ever have been here at all would be a starting line for a lot of people. Though they could have been here in the past but don't come around any more, or they could come around now but were not around a thousand years ago, it seems most people who accept that they could have been here in the past also accept that they could still be coming around. It's all the same from my pov. I still find it amusing that some people who disbelieve the possibility that they've been here already, don't seem to have a problem with the possibility that they could arrive next year, or next month, or in a couple of hours....

Quote

Who would want to cover it up and why? I can sort of see why the government might lie to the press if they don't want people to know they really found solid evidence of xts, but who would come to forums like this to do it and why? IF some solid evidence was really found, why would they even want to lie about it unless they'd been contacted by xts and told to take that approach? If an xt vehicle did "crash" and bodies were found I believe it would more likely be deliberate rather than an accident. It seems that would be them giving us something that SHOULD be made public unless they contacted officials in the government and told them otherwise.

This is the whole problem with the Aliens/Ancient Astronauts/ET claims IMO. There are a ridiculous amount of "could have's", "maybe's", "might have been's", "what if's" and a complete and total lack of verifiable physical evidence of ET's existance. Only a convenient excuse for not having any. I actually await the day when believers quit making excuses for the lack of verifiable evidence and actually present some, but since it hasn't happened in the last 50 years I'm not going to hold my breath waiting on it.

cormac

[bmk1245]

mcrom901, on 16 January 2013 - 03:53 AM, said:

that sarbacher was told about it?



http://www.president...-interview-1983

[...]

What a "surprise",  your question left unanswered... You are definitely on McG's ignore list.

[topsecretresearch]

nopeda, on 16 January 2013 - 07:49 PM, said:

Who would want to cover it up and why? I can sort of see why the government might lie to the press if they don't want people to know they really found solid evidence of xts, but who would come to forums like this to do it and why? IF some solid evidence was really found, why would they even want to lie about it unless they'd been contacted by xts and told to take that approach? If an xt vehicle did "crash" and bodies were found I believe it would more likely be deliberate rather than an accident. It seems that would be them giving us something that SHOULD be made public unless they contacted officials in the government and told them otherwise.

You're too naive. Read the paper.

[topsecretresearch]

cormac mac airt, on 16 January 2013 - 08:21 PM, said:

This is the whole problem with the Aliens/Ancient Astronauts/ET claims IMO. There are a ridiculous amount of "could have's", "maybe's", "might have been's", "what if's" and a complete and total lack of verifiable physical evidence of ET's existance. Only a convenient excuse for not having any. I actually await the day when believers quit making excuses for the lack of verifiable evidence and actually present some, but since it hasn't happened in the last 50 years I'm not going to hold my breath waiting on it.

cormac

Actually there is physcial trace evidence. Ignorance is a bliss to some people.

Edited by topsecretresearch, 17 January 2013 - 02:04 AM.

[cormac mac airt]

topsecretresearch, on 17 January 2013 - 01:59 AM, said:

Actually there is physcial trace evidence. Ignorance is a bliss to some people.

Good to hear you're happy. Congratulations.

cormac

[DingoLingo]

Physical trace evidence.. hmmmm...

ok.. just a quick one.. there have been all these people who have been abducted.. and have supposedly had something implanted in them.. funny enough..when the 'implants' are tested there is nothing to show for it..

like crashed ufo's.. no evidence.. or if evidence is put forth.. it ends up being something man made..

so lets see..

UFO's seen in the sky - blurry photo's of a fake ufo.. - No hard evidence - FACT
People meeting aliens - testimonies of different aliens - No hard evidence - FACT
Crashed UFO's - testimonies from people who have seen it. Odd things put forward as Alien - No hard evidence - FACT
Government Coverup's of UFO's - again testimonies .. supposed reports.. and I could go on.. - again No hard evidence - FACT
Ancient Aliens - there is a nice long thread on this which to be honest.. shows there is nothing in this at all so - No hard evidence - FACT

So you see.. there is no hard evidence of ufo's.. there never has been..

[topsecretresearch]

DingoLingo all your points are wrong because you don't know much. It's the assume something is false and therefore type thinking.
I think a lot of peope have this popular culture perception of UFOs and maybe they come to forums like these assuming its all rubbish. A lot of people don't want to learn, they want to cheat on test and bend their logic around what's socially acceptable.

[DingoLingo]

topsecretresearch, on 17 January 2013 - 03:22 AM, said:

DingoLingo all your points are wrong because you don't know much. It's the assume something is false and therefore type thinking.
I think a lot of peope have this popular culture perception of UFOs and maybe they come to forums like these assuming its all rubbish. A lot of people don't want to learn, they want to cheat on test and bend their logic around what's socially acceptable.

hmmm I do believe I think I have said this to the Guffin.. hello kettle my name is pot..


oh and on a side note here top.. it seems you have some undeniable evidence that can prove that ufo's and all that are real.. please.. share it with the class.. we would all love to see it..

problem is there.. like Guff.. you cant because you do not have any... all you have is speculations no hard facts or evidence..

The whole UFO crowd are like snakeoil salesmen.. very good a spinning a believable story.. but when you get the bottle home and try it.. it just does not seem to work as advertised..

Edited by DingoLingo, 17 January 2013 - 04:28 AM.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

topsecretresearch, on 17 January 2013 - 03:22 AM, said:

DingoLingo all your points are wrong because you don't know much. It's the assume something is false and therefore type thinking.
I think a lot of peope have this popular culture perception of UFOs and maybe they come to forums like these assuming its all rubbish. A lot of people don't want to learn, they want to cheat on test and bend their logic around what's socially acceptable.

are photos good evidence? They're good secondary evidence to support a theory but not evidence in and of themselves.
are eye-witness testimonies good evidence? They're good secondary evidence to support a theory, but a dozen people can see a crime and report a dozen different and often contradictory things. Also, people lie.
are crashed UFOs good evidence? Actually yes. They'd be perfect. Where are they again? Ohh you've seen it. See above.
government coverups? Well by their very nature you're never going to find evidence of a coverup, unless it's a really rubbish one. And we do have evidence (that being our old friend "testimony") that "it were unknown aliens" has been used to cover up human technology that the government didn't want their enemies to find out about.
ancient aliens? Ohh good lord, there's LESS evidence of them then there is of Roswell.

[quillius]

DingoLingo, on 17 January 2013 - 02:54 AM, said:

Physical trace evidence.. hmmmm...

yes, there has been trace evidence, this is a fact I believe.

DingoLingo, on 17 January 2013 - 02:54 AM, said:

ok.. just a quick one.. there have been all these people who have been abducted.. and have supposedly had something implanted in them.. funny enough..when the 'implants' are tested there is nothing to show for it..

ok I dont think we should throw all these claims together, way too many with Psychological issues making claims. However, I do know of one or two abduction claims that are rather interesting....

DingoLingo, on 17 January 2013 - 02:54 AM, said:

like crashed ufo's.. no evidence.. or if evidence is put forth.. it ends up being something man made..

if it happened I dont think getting hold of evidence would be that easy do you?

DingoLingo, on 17 January 2013 - 02:54 AM, said:

UFO's seen in the sky - blurry photo's of a fake ufo.. - No hard evidence - FACT

??? blurry photos of fake UFO??? are you suggesting anomolies have not been phtographed and any that have are fake? that is certainly not a fact, although I assume you have something to show that all UFO photos are blurry fakes??? are photos ever hard evidence?  unsure of point you are making

DingoLingo, on 17 January 2013 - 02:54 AM, said:

People meeting aliens - testimonies of different aliens - No hard evidence - FACT

is testimony ever hard evidence? . not sure of your point here?

DingoLingo, on 17 January 2013 - 02:54 AM, said:

Crashed UFO's - testimonies from people who have seen it. Odd things put forward as Alien - No hard evidence - FACT

DingoLingo, on 17 January 2013 - 02:54 AM, said:

Government Coverup's of UFO's - again testimonies .. supposed reports.. and I could go on.. - again No hard evidence - FACT

no hard evidence to show a cover up? really? (this doesnt by default mean they covered up ET, maybe just the belief that this phenomena was ET!!!) but a cover up was definately happening throughout the past.

DingoLingo, on 17 January 2013 - 02:54 AM, said:

Ancient Aliens - there is a nice long thread on this which to be honest.. shows there is nothing in this at all so - No hard evidence - FACT

ok AA not my area

DingoLingo, on 17 January 2013 - 02:54 AM, said:

So you see.. there is no hard evidence of ufo's.. there never has been..

wow so UFOs dont exist???? ok

[DingoLingo]

Oh UFO's are real.. as for Alien UFO's in our skies.. ahh.. I think you know my answer to this..

[quillius]

DingoLingo, on 17 January 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:

Oh UFO's are real.. as for Alien UFO's in our skies.. ahh.. I think you know my answer to this..

good, I am glad we agree on the FACT UFO's are real......as for what they are, well......I know what they are not.....Venus

[cormac mac airt]

quillius, on 17 January 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

good, I am glad we agree on the FACT UFO's are real......as for what they are, well......I know what they are not.....Venus

That's one of the problems IMO with the ET crowd, the inability to understand the difference. Unidentified does not automatically equate to extraterrestrial. The former exists, otherwise they'd be called "identified". The latter has no verifiable evidence to support it, so is by no stretch of the imagination a foregone conclusion.

cormac

[quillius]

cormac mac airt, on 17 January 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:

That's one of the problems IMO with the ET crowd, the inability to understand the difference. Unidentified does not automatically equate to extraterrestrial. The former exists, otherwise they'd be called "identified". The latter has no verifiable evidence to support it, so is by no stretch of the imagination a foregone conclusion.

cormac

I agree this is a problem although I wouldnt put it down to inability, but a combination of factors. Included in one of these factors is frustration in the way some discussions are handled by those more 'skeptical' than others. Add a confusion (or just alternate use) of the word UFO, throw in a pinch of pride with every post and you have a meaningless result.

'ET crowd' is quite a broad loose term BTW...

[cormac mac airt]

quillius, on 17 January 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

I agree this is a problem although I wouldnt put it down to inability, but a combination of factors. Included in one of these factors is frustration in the way some discussions are handled by those more 'skeptical' than others. Add a confusion (or just alternate use) of the word UFO, throw in a pinch of pride with every post and you have a meaningless result.

'ET crowd' is quite a broad loose term BTW...

It's just as frustrating for those more skeptical when, more often than not, the "bar" for what constitutes evidence for the existance of ET's having been here appears to have been lowered to a point beyond ridiculous. And the oft touted "starting line", particularly in this thread, would not be explaining how or when ET's got here but that they exist FIRST. Otherwise it's just another case of putting the cart before the horse.

cormac