10148 replies to this topic

[topsecretresearch]

The problem with you and many arm chair skeptics who assume something is false first and you base your opinion on popular culture. I call debunkers on these type of forums crank debunkers for that very reason. It's not a bad thing to keep an open mind and not be angered over something that challeges conventional orthodoxy type thinking. The Universe may not revolve around the human race. We may not be all that important in the scheme of things.

[Crikey]

topsecretresearch, on 29 January 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:

..I call debunkers on these type of forums crank debunkers..

Ha ha, and  i call them "Ughs" because no matter what daring groundbreaking new theory comes up, they instantly try to debunk it like neanderthals cowering in the security of their dark caves afraid of lightning bolts..

"Ugh...we afraid...ugh...gods are angry...ugh..."

[Abramelin]

topsecretresearch, on 29 January 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:

The problem with you and many arm chair skeptics who assume something is false first and you base your opinion on popular culture. I call debunkers on these type of forums crank debunkers for that very reason. It's not a bad thing to keep an open mind and not be angered over something that challeges conventional orthodoxy type thinking. The Universe may not revolve around the human race. We may not be all that important in the scheme of things.

I don't know who the "you" is in your post (I can't imagin you mean Crikey here, lol), but being open-minded is not the same as blindly accepting any fantasy. And when people fail to support their 'theories' and use some crackpot new age science to support ther "theories", then you can expect people to be critical about it.

Crikey, on 29 January 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

Ha ha, and  i call them "Ughs" because no matter what daring groundbreaking new theory comes up, they instantly try to debunk it like neanderthals cowering in the security of their dark caves afraid of lightning bolts..

"Ugh...we afraid...ugh...gods are angry...ugh..."

The problem is: there is no real theory.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

It's one thing to have an open mind, it-s another to have a mind so open your brain falls out or you let in all sorts o nonsense.

[Slave2Fate]

topsecretresearch, on 29 January 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:

The problem with you and many arm chair skeptics who assume something is false first and you base your opinion on popular culture. I call debunkers on these type of forums crank debunkers for that very reason. It's not a bad thing to keep an open mind and not be angered over something that challeges conventional orthodoxy type thinking. The Universe may not revolve around the human race. We may not be all that important in the scheme of things.

If one wants to 'challenge' orthodox theories then one must, at the very least, present an argument with substance combined with supporting evidence and a valid falsifiable theory to explain it. The ETH has never been more than just a maybe, so why should it be given any consideration beyond that? You seem to take offense that your presented evidence isn't as definitive as you would like. Who's fault is that, honestly?

[psyche101]

Lord Vetinari, on 29 January 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

oh dear, am I included in that "some people"? Oh dear, how very spiteful.

Fair go Lord V, what did you expect from invoking magical invisible to us signalling rocks?

[psyche101]

topsecretresearch, on 29 January 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:

The problem with you and many arm chair skeptics who assume something is false first and you base your opinion on popular culture. I call debunkers on these type of forums crank debunkers for that very reason. It's not a bad thing to keep an open mind and not be angered over something that challeges conventional orthodoxy type thinking. The Universe may not revolve around the human race. We may not be all that important in the scheme of things.

LOL!!

You are soooo funny I reckon.


Because you are ignorant to explanations offered, you claim them invalid! LOL, where have I heard the before I wonder............

Yes it is not a bad thing to keep an open mind, but reading educational material as opposed to woo woo sites does not hurt either.

[psyche101]

Crikey, on 29 January 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

Ha ha, and  i call them "Ughs" because no matter what daring groundbreaking new theory comes up, they instantly try to debunk it like neanderthals cowering in the security of their dark caves afraid of lightning bolts..

"Ugh...we afraid...ugh...gods are angry...ugh..."

Are you lot not the ones claiming lightning bolts (or rocks) have magical powers?

It's the people who know they do not that go Ho Hum.

I suppose you have a sticker on your car that says "Magic Happens" LOL.

I guess you would call such Ughs, if your vocabulary is in line with your scientific knowledge LOL.

[psyche101]

theSOURCE, on 28 January 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

So what you're saying is that Saiph is located in some guys crotch?

I know what system I am not visiting then.

[topsecretresearch]

Slave2Fate, on 29 January 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

If one wants to 'challenge' orthodox theories then one must, at the very least, present an argument with substance combined with supporting evidence and a valid falsifiable theory to explain it. The ETH has never been more than just a maybe, so why should it be given any consideration beyond that? You seem to take offense that your presented evidence isn't as definitive as you would like. Who's fault is that, honestly?

But what do you know about UFOs and the evidence that is out there? That's the problem.

[Slave2Fate]

psyche101, on 29 January 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

I know what system I am not visiting then.

Especially if the residents look like crabs...


Meh, so it was a lowbrow joke, sue me...

[topsecretresearch]

psyche101, on 29 January 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

LOL!!

You are soooo funny I reckon.


Because you are ignorant to explanations offered, you claim them invalid! LOL, where have I heard the before I wonder............

Yes it is not a bad thing to keep an open mind, but reading educational material as opposed to woo woo sites does not hurt either.

Yet you are on the "Unexplained Mysteries" forums making a fuss over aliens. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Googling a debunker explanation only means you are as guillible as the people you criticize.

[Slave2Fate]

topsecretresearch, on 29 January 2013 - 10:20 AM, said:

But what do you know about UFOs and the evidence that is out there? That's the problem.

Having been an active member here for near 5 years I'm sure I've seen at least as much on the subject, if not more, than you. But you see, the difference is I look at all of the evidence, not just what I want to hear. It helps to get a broad view of any given scenario and then apply critical thought and logic in an effort to separate the wheat from the chaff. It isn't always easy, nor is it always fruitful as there are cases that leave me wondering. However the possibility of alien visitation isn't nearly solid enough for me to take it as a given. I need more than just someone's opinion on the matter.

[seeder]

zoser, on 29 January 2013 - 06:59 AM, said:

Your an idiot if you believe that.

Those nodules serve no practical purpose yet are there in constructions thousands of miles apart.

It's your problem to solve not mine.

No zoser, its YOUR problem. You're the one who has issues with bumps on rocks. Get a life!   So - talking about constructions thousands of miles and even years apart, we find the polygonal style of building in other places such as Japan, Italy, and the Med...just to name a few.

THE SAME STYLE OF BUILDING! Got that?

so what?

[Lilly]

Crikey, on 29 January 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

Ha ha, and  i call them "Ughs" because no matter what daring groundbreaking new theory comes up, they instantly try to debunk it like neanderthals cowering in the security of their dark caves afraid of lightning bolts..

"Ugh...we afraid...ugh...gods are angry...ugh..."

I gather you haven't taken much science. You see, there's this little thing called 'the scientific method'. This system of standards based on evidence, rational thinking, and experimentation is the very reason you're typing on a computer, driving a car, seeing a doctor etc...you get the point. So, one of the very first things one does after formulating an hypothesis (ie, "daring groundbreaking new theory") is to see if your hypothesis can be falsified. You do this because if there is any way that your idea can readily be found to be incorrect you either need more evidence or a new hypothesis. Ergo, it's not primitive 'non-thinking' people who reject "daring groundbreaking new theories" that are lacking (such ideas aren't really theories BTW), but rather it's those who are attempting to apply citical scientific standards in order to see if the hypothesis does or does not stand up to scrutiny.

Now, I'm going to speak as a moderator. Do not engage in name calling simply because you disagree with others. This is a very basic concept necessary for civil discussion.