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

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!

Errmmm... ETs are here, they are bad, etc.

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, [...]

Disagrees with me? He did show squat. For f@ks sake, do folks know squat about equipment images were taken, post processing procedures aftermath, etc... Gosh... We had one "brilliant" PS CS3 "master"...

[...]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.

Deny what? They can't identify? Sure then, must be ETs. Edited by bmk1245
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

The reason is that we disagree on the basic facts and evidence, and even the definitions of facts and evidence.

As for your opinion of me--daffy, crazy, stupid, fanatical--you are never shy about stating those, either on this thread or any other, but naturally I do not accept your opinion. And if you do have more knowledge about ETS and UFOs than you let on, you are certainly not "sharing" it on here.

Edited by TheMacGuffin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

So, where are ETs? You definitely posted P/2010 A2 as some sort of ET presence. Again, where are ETs?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

No i'm not doing it to annoy you, i'm asking you a simple question.

I NEVER ASKED YOU IF YOU THOUGHT IT WAS ALIEN - DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT SENTENCE.

I asked you if your conclusion was guess work, the same guess work you accuse others of.

Do you understand that question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Errmmm... ETs are here, they are bad, etc.

That's no religion in my book, or it sure isn't much of one. I do not think of them as gods, angels or supernatural beings, only representatives of civilizations that are more advanced than ours. There's plenty of proof they are here, but not that they are interested in friendly, open contact. We have fired at them many times and sometimes they have fired back.

I have said all this many times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me correct description, except stupid, of course.

I'm not a great admirer of yours, either--just the opposite--but I refuse to accept your caricatures of me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason is that we disagree on the basic facts and evidence, and even the definitions of facts and evidence.

No, we don't. We disagree on the interpretation of said. Facts are not disputable, they just are.

As for your opinion of me--daffy, crazy, stupid, fanatical--you are never shy about stating those, either on this thread or any other, but naturally I do not accept your opinion.

I have never called you any of the above. That is again your own interpretation of when I dispute your interpretation.

And if you do have more knowledge about ETS and UFOs than you let on, you are certainly not "sharing" it on here.

I share what I feel I can discuss on a substantiated basis. I don't need to extrapolate.And I certainly do not need to invoke the I know card.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No i'm not doing it to annoy you, i'm asking you a simple question.

I NEVER ASKED YOU IF YOU THOUGHT IT WAS ALIEN - DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT SENTENCE.

I asked you if your conclusion was guess work, the same guess work you accuse others of.

Do you understand that question?

I have already answered it many times. Since I rule out any natural or conventional explanations, then I assume that it must be some kind of spacecraft unknown to us. Or if it is one of ours then it's something very highly classified.

Ask me something else now because I won't answer the same question again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never called you any of the above. That is again your own interpretation of when I dispute your interpretation.

That's not true, either, since you have said these very things right on this thread!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not true, either, since you have said these very things right on this thread!

Please do point out those specific posts, then.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited by badeskov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have already answered it many times. Since I rule out any natural or conventional explanations, then I assume that it must be some kind of spacecraft unknown to us. Or if it is one of ours then it's something very highly classified.

Ask me something else now because I won't answer the same question again.

Fair enough. That is your interpretation. Not Kaku's then. Glad we got that settled.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited by badeskov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have already answered it many times. Since I rule out any natural or conventional explanations, then I assume that it must be some kind of spacecraft unknown to us. Or if it is one of ours then it's something very highly classified.

Ask me something else now because I won't answer the same question again.

You really are struggling to wriggle around this one aren't you...lol

Anyway, wasted enough time on this already, off to do some star gazing before the clouds roll in..

I'll leave you to get on with turning yet another thread into "The MacGuffins being hard done by evil sceptics again" show...you clearly get off on it.

Adios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, we don't. We disagree on the interpretation of said. Facts are not disputable, they just are.

I share what I feel I can discuss on a substantiated basis. I don't need to extrapolate.And I certainly do not need to invoke the I know card.

Basically I see you as very biased in your own way, clinging to a certain view that you have never changed and probably never will, at least not in any public discussion.

You generally deny that any facts and evidence that we offer about UFOs and ETs are indeed real facts or evidence, no matter what. You do that all the time. This is what i mean by no real discussion being possible on this basis--not with the skeptic/debunker crowd that is absolutely immovable in its opinions--for whatever reason.

Once again, although I don't like to impute nefarious motives to all of you, I can't help but note how the things you say seem to derive from the 1953 Robertson Panels' tips on debunking all UFOs and ridiculing anyone who has seen one or uncovers evidence about them. That has been the standard operating procedure for decades and it is done to me all the time.'

Of course, I also pointed out that Dr. H.P. Robertson was a classified employee of the CIA and that he was involved in UFO investigations going back to World War II, and that all UFO records had been pulled from his personal papers.

I never get any response from the "skeptical" crowd when I point out things like this, or that the debunking tricks they use are the same ones as he recommended in 1953. No, they don't like to talk about Dr. Robertson or his real employer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really are struggling to wriggle around this one aren't you...lol

Anyway, wasted enough time on this already, off to do some star gazing before the clouds roll in..

I'll leave you to get on with turning yet another thread into "The MacGuffins being hard done by evil sceptics again" show...you clearly get off on it.

Adios.

Enjoy your star gazing, old buddy - I am envious :)

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough. That is your interpretation. Not Kaku's then. Glad we got that settled.

What you say is "fair" is generally nothing of the kind, at least not to me, and I'm glad to say that we never agree about anything. All that's settled is that we don't think much of each other. Kaku didn't have any real explanations for the UFO and definitely didn't want to talk about possible ETs, only possible asteroid collisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really are struggling to wriggle around this one aren't you...lol

I never wriggle around anything, but then I don't come on here acting like some lawyer, asking the same question ten different ways and then attacking the witness for being "non-responsive".

Very annoying.

Edited by TheMacGuffin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically I see you as very biased in your own way, clinging to a certain view that you have never changed and probably never will, at least not in any public discussion.

None of us can make us free of bias. That is just a fact of life. It is how we approach that bias.

You generally deny that any facts and evidence that we offer about UFOs and ETs are indeed real facts or evidence, no matter what. You do that all the time. This is what i mean by no real discussion being possible on this basis--not with the skeptic/debunker crowd that is absolutely immovable in its opinions--for whatever reason.

No I don't. I dispute your interpretation. And that is what is up for discussion.

Once again, although I don't like to impute nefarious motives to all of you, I can't help but note how the things you say seem to derive from the 1953 Robertson Panels' tips on debunking all UFOs and ridiculing anyone who has seen one or uncovers evidence about them. That has been the standard operating procedure for decades and it is done to me all the time.'

And nor do I to you. I just think that you are wrong. I honestly think that you have the best of intentions, I just think that you are wrong. I am sure we'd have a great time over a beer or the like.

Of course, I also pointed out that Dr. H.P. Robertson was a classified employee of the CIA and that he was involved in UFO investigations going back to World War II, and that all UFO records had been pulled from his personal papers.

So?

I never get any response from the "skeptical" crowd when I point out things like this, or that the debunking tricks they use are the same ones as he recommended in 1953. No, they don't like to talk about Dr. Robertson or his real employer.

Because there is very little to take from that. Unless starting to extrapolate.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please do point out those specific posts, then.

Well, like the ones where you said I was "daft" or "smoking something", things like that. I don't know if you got around to using the "tinfoil hat" one, but generally it sounded like the usual stuff from the Skeptical Playbook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you say is "fair" is generally nothing of the kind, at least not to me,

Please explain why that is not "fair enough".? You believe in ET visitation, I respect that. That is your opinion. Why is it not fair that I acknowledge that?

and I'm glad to say that we never agree about anything.

That is also fair enough.

All that's settled is that we don't think much of each other.

That is not true. I think you are a great researcher and that you know a lot of stuff. I just don't agree with your interpretation and the way you go about it when you meet opposition. That does not mean that I do not respect what you have dug up.

Kaku didn't have any real explanations for the UFO and definitely didn't want to talk about possible ETs, only possible asteroid collisions.

Which essentially means that it was unknown from his point of view (or what he told us).

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, like the ones where you said I was "daft" or "smoking something", things like that. I don't know if you got around to using the "tinfoil hat" one, but generally it sounded like the usual stuff from the Skeptical Playbook.

I asked if you were daft? And I asked what you were smoking. You are, naturally, aware of those figures of speech, right? By no means does that infer that I think that of you.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a great admirer of yours, either--just the opposite--but I refuse to accept your caricatures of me.

Who cares... Anyway, summing up, your're wrong on P/2010 A2 main points.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked if you were daft? And I asked what you were smoking. You are, naturally, aware of those figures of speech, right? By no means does that infer that I think that of you.

Don't stoop to splitting hairs. It's pretty obvious what you meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't stoop to splitting hairs. It's pretty obvious what you meant.

It was not splitting hairs, because, for the record, I do not think that you are daft nor smoking anything. It was, in fact, meant as a figure of speech.

Cheers,

Badeskov

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.