Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Alien life could be discovered within 40 yrs


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

Kaku says in this video: "It doesn't fit any profiles of the usual suspects". He says it is not stars, galaxies, meteors, planets, but that it is about the size of the Rosebowl Stadium.

Then he says again:

"It's not a comet"

"It's not a meteor"

Does he not say these things, or am I just imagining it all?

No, he said that. And did I imagine that you said the following?:

... That's why I posted the video, so Prof. Kaku could tell us that it wasn't a natural object.

Kaku said no such thing. YOU made the extrapolation based on your belief. And that is what is being pointed out.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really care.

Now that's the only true thing you have said so far.

As for the rest, your opinions are obvious and predictable, just as I always say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kaku says in this video: "It doesn't fit any profiles of the usual suspects". He says it is not stars, galaxies, meteors, planets, but that it is about the size of the Rosebowl Stadium.

Then he says again:

"It's not a comet"

"It's not a meteor"

Does he not say these things, or am I just imagining it all?

And he goes along asteroid collision. Its a viable hypothesis, having observation/calculation support more than any of your ET anecdotes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They didn't make a broadcast telling me that it was an ET, but even these scientists thought it was something very unique--something that they claimed had never been seen before.

Of course I don't believe the usual debunkers and deniers who will never concede anything on any UFO case, nor do I believe their ridiculous assertions that all facts and science are on their side, while anyone who dares to disagree with them is a lunatic or religious fanatic. Those are just the usual things they pull out of their little debating bag of tricks, but it doesn't make them right.

Never has and never will.

To be fair, you've dodged my question there. I'm not a debunker, i've disagreed with Badeskov and others on here before, we have a difference of opinion in regards to certain aspects of this subject, and that's cool - but what you are accusing him of doesn't stand true, since he is using your words to try and pin down what you said, but what you have said isn't what the video said, you have placed your own interpretation on what was said on the video. That is what he has pointed out, nothing more.

Do you agree that your opinion on this being ET related is guess work at best at the moment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that's the only true thing you have said so far.

As for the rest, your opinions are obvious and predictable, just as I always say.

And your unfounded extrapolations likewise.

Fact: Michiu Kaku said it didn't look like what we typically knew.

Fact: Michiu Kaku offered an explanation

Fact: You disregarded this and extrapolated with no basis in reality,

The above are not opinions, nor did I anywhere offer an opinion on what this was. Dude, you need to get back to reality.

Yes, we do, and more than you'll ever admit to.

Nonsense.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited by badeskov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And he goes along asteroid collision. Its a viable hypothesis, having observation/calculation support more than any of your ET anecdotes.

He mentioned that as a possibility, rather than answer the question about anything ET flying around up there. I don't blame him, because once anyone gets out of line are dares to mention that, then he will have the BMK and Badeskov types pouncing all over him--and worse.

No, I can't blame him there, since he knows what you are just as well as I do.

Still, I don't find that my quoting of this video is some kind of "belief" or "theology" or "religious interpretation", even if you would have it so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, you've dodged my question there. I'm not a debunker, i've disagreed with Badeskov and others on here before, we have a difference of opinion in regards to certain aspects of this subject, and that's cool -

<snip>

Agreed! And that is what I really enjoy and what I learn from :tu: And most certainly respect :)

Cheers,

Badeskov

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It must be that the natural reply to all things E.T. and unknown ! WHen are the facts going to out weigh the stories of possibilities ?

Well one things for sure nothing is for sure ! :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, you've dodged my question there. I'm not a debunker, i've disagreed with Badeskov and others on here before, we have a difference of opinion in regards to certain aspects of this subject, and that's cool - but what you are accusing him of doesn't stand true, since he is using your words to try and pin down what you said, but what you have said isn't what the video said, you have placed your own interpretation on what was said on the video. That is what he has pointed out, nothing more.

Do you agree that your opinion on this being ET related is guess work at best at the moment?

I never dodge any questions on here. No one can ever say that about me, no matter what other wild charges they fling in my direction.

Of course I think it was something ET. I always have.

How many times have I said so on here? How many times do I have to say it?

If it wasn't ET, then we have been flying around some very advanced spacecraft that no one knows about. I think both things are going on and have said so a billion times.

Do I believe in the "facts", opinions and interpretations of BMK, Badeskov and the rest when it comes to ETs and UFOs? Absolutely not, because their views run counter to my own evidence and personal experience. Naturally I disagree with them that all the "scientific evidence" supports their opinions because I know perfectly well that it does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For that matter, this is not the only "anomaly" that has been photographed out there--far from it--although I'm sure they will have ready-made "explanations" for everything. If they don't, they'll quickly make one up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And in fact, the UFOs have been interested in Hubble ever since it was launched, just as they have always been interested in everything else that we do in space. That's what I really think, and it doesn't bother me in the least to say so openly, Sky Scanner.

They have very likely been hanging around this solar system for a very long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And your unfounded extrapolations likewise.

Fact: Michiu Kaku said it didn't look like what we typically knew.

Fact: Michiu Kaku offered an explanation

Fact: You disregarded this and extrapolated with no basis in reality,

The above are not opinions, nor did I anywhere offer an opinion on what this was. Dude, you need to get back to reality.

No, only the first one is a fact. He did say that.

The second statement was his opinion.

The third statement is just your opinion of me, which makes a nice propaganda point but has no basis in reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He mentioned that as a possibility, rather than answer the question about anything ET flying around up there.[...]

And its viable possibiity as all obseravtions/calculations and as upcomming papers will show

[...] I don't blame him, because once anyone gets out of line are dares to mention that, then he will have the BMK and Badeskov types pouncing all over him--and worse.

[...]

And he is smart not to jump in that UFO=ET swamp.

[...] Still, I don't find that my quoting of this video is some kind of "belief" or "theology" or "religious interpretation", even if you would have it so.

Seriously? You are the one who turned that video into religion. You were wrong interpreting his words, not skeptics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never dodge any questions on here. No one can ever say that about me, no matter what other wild charges they fling in my direction.

Of course I think it was something ET. I always have.

How many times have I said so on here? How many times do I have to say it?

If it wasn't ET, then we have been flying around some very advanced spacecraft that no one knows about. I think both things are going on and have said so a billion times.

Do I believe in the "facts", opinions and interpretations of BMK, Badeskov and the rest when it comes to ETs and UFOs? Absolutely not, because their views run counter to my own evidence and personal experience. Naturally I disagree with them that all the "scientific evidence" supports their opinions because I know perfectly well that it does not.

Again, you're not answering my question. I'm not asking you if you believe in ET, or if ET has visited us, I already know you believe that - i'm not questioning that. I am asking you if you'd concede that with this particular case, with the lack of info available, you are guessing as to it's origin being ET? (as you say others are guessing about asteroids etc)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And he goes along asteroid collision. Its a viable hypothesis, having observation/calculation support more than any of your ET anecdotes.

Yes, that was the very tentative guess or opinion he offered, rather than addressing the question about some possible ET thing flying around out there. His opinion was heavily qualified and tentative, saying that they were all stumped, perplexed, had never seen anything like it, and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For that matter, this is not the only "anomaly" that has been photographed out there--far from it--although I'm sure they will have ready-made "explanations" for everything. If they don't, they'll quickly make one up.

[media=]

[/media]

Jeez, some low life idiot finds artifact, and thats the finding??? Come on, you are better than that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, only the first one is a fact. He did say that.

The second statement was his opinion.

Sigh. It was a fact that he offered his opinion, that is all that I stated. No wonder you end up in such deep holes.

The third statement is just your opinion of me, which makes a nice propaganda point but has no basis in reality.

No, that is not an opinion either. That is a FACT. Kaku said no such thing and you made that extrapolation. It is factual, as repeated shown.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, you're not answering my question. I'm not asking you if you believe in ET, or if ET has visited us, I already know you believe that - i'm not questioning that. I am asking you if you'd concede that with this particular case, with the lack of info available, you are guessing as to it's origin being ET? (as you say others are guessing about asteroids etc)

Here again, how can you say I don't answer questions? I spend a lot of time on here doing nothing else.

It looks like something ET to me. It looks like some kind of weird spacecraft to me of a type that I have never seen before. It does NOT look like a natural object to me--at least nothing like any such object I have seen before.

I have said that many times. I do NOT believe Badeskov and BMK and the rest, not even their claims about how they are scientific and those of us who disagree with them are fools, idiots, crazies and fanatics.

How can I answer your question more plainly than that?

God, it really annoys me when you people pull that trick of saying that I don't answer your questions. Name me one single person on UM who answers questions in a more straightforward manner than I do. I even repeat my answers again and again, in words of one syllable or less, so people will make damn sure to understand exactly what I'm saying, even if I have to drum it into them.

I admire the plain speaking of Harry Truman, and I'll keep drumming this answer into your head until you understand exactly what I mean. Is that clear enough?

harry-truman.jpeg

Edited by TheMacGuffin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously? You are the one who turned that video into religion. You were wrong interpreting his words, not skeptics.

What religion could you possibly imagine that I have about ETs and UFOs? I don't even like the SOBs, as I have said many times!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeez, some low life idiot finds artifact, and thats the finding??? Come on, you are better than that.

I don't know if he's a low-life idiot or not. Here again, that's your first reaction to anyone who disagrees with you, and frankly that's my reaction to most people on your side of the question.

I have said that many UFOs and other "anomalies" have been photographed and filmed out there in space and I don't see how any honest person can deny it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that was the very tentative guess or opinion he offered, rather than addressing the question about some possible ET thing flying around out there. His opinion was heavily qualified and tentative, saying that they were all stumped, perplexed, had never seen anything like it, and so on.

Yes, they were all stumped, perplexed, because such event is on the rare scale. Don't you get it? Such impact - that was made all stumped, perplexed, because event like this weren't observed before.

BTW, there are still many thing we will be stumped/perplexed on, but IMHO, ETs will be the last.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, they were all stumped, perplexed, because such event is on the rare scale. Don't you get it? Such impact - that was made all stumped, perplexed, because event like this weren't observed before.

BTW, there are still many thing we will be stumped/perplexed on, but IMHO, ETs will be the last.

According to Kaku, it was an event that had never been seen before, much less photographed, a once-in-a-lifetime event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here again, how can you say I don't answer questions? I spend a lot of time on here doing nothing else.

It looks like something ET to me. It looks like some kind of weird spacecraft to me of a type that I have never seen before. It does NOT look like a natural object to me--at least nothing like any such object I have seen before.

I have said that many times. I do NOT believe Badeskov and BMK and the rest, not even their claims about how they are scientific and those of us who disagree with them are fools, idiots, crazies and fanatics.

How can I answer your question more plainly than that?

God, it really annoys me when you people pull that trick of saying that I don't answer your questions. Name me one single person on UM who answers questions in a more straightforward manner than I do. I even repeat my answers again and again, in words of one syllable or less, so people will make damn sure to understand exactly what I'm saying, even if I have to drum it into them.

I admire the plain speaking of Harry Truman, and I'll keep drumming this answer into your head until you understand exactly what I mean. Is that clear enough?

harry-truman.jpeg

Well I can say you didn't answer my question, because up until that reply, you hadn't answered my question. My question was simple and specific, your answers had nothing to do with what I asked you.

Now you say it looks like ET to you, because it doesn't look like a natural object to you. Your not in a position to say it isn't a natural object, only that it doesn't look like one to you.

So even though you wouldn't answer with a simple yes or no answer, you have, in your own 'round the houses' way, answered. Yes, you are guessing like everyone else as to what it is, your ET explanation is a guess. Thank you.

Edited by The Sky Scanner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I can say you didn't answer my question, because up until that reply, you hadn't answered my question. My question was simple and specific, your answers had nothing to do with what I asked you.

Now you say it looks like ET to you, because it doesn't look like a natural object to you. Your not in a position to say it isn't a natural object, only that it doesn't look like one to you.

So even though you wouldn't answer with a simple yes or no answer, you have, in your own 'round the houses' way, answered. Yes, you are guessing like everyone else as to what it is, your ET explanation is a guess. Thank you.

Yes, yes, yes, I think it's an ET object, a UFO, and alien spacecraft.

A million times YES.

What other answer do you want? How many times do I have to repeat myself???????

Admit it, are you doing this just to annoy me?

Edited by TheMacGuffin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.