How many of you can get to the starting line?

[nopeda]

I would just like to say that people like Hazzard,cormac and bmk are just flaming and should stop... McG posted tons of data and pictures and usefull links maybe some actualy were real events.

On the other hand those 3 and probably more are doing nothing but flaming no usefull material from any of those.

Maybe bad attitude...but hey they just want to see " proof " ...

People like that can't get to the starting line, probably ever at any point during their entire lives. If so, how and when? They also have no evidence that xts have not been to this planet. How could they have? They wish they could but can't, so they instead often deny that any evidence of xts exists. People here discuss lots of evidence all the time, yet some of those who can't get to the starting line try to deny that it exists even while they are involved in discussions about it. How clever is that?

[nopeda]

I know for a fact Santa exists, I've even seen him at the mall!

What do you think a person in a Santa outfit has to do with the possibility that beings from other star systems have been to this one? Do you think the fact that humans made up the idea of Santa somehow prevents interstellar travel to this star system, and if so how? If not, why did you even bother to bring it up?

[cormac mac airt]

Hello cormac, may I ask how you arrived at the part 'what you want to believe'???

His statement here (in part):

Let's just say that I saw one myself, and afterwards came in contact with the real UFO investigation in the military...

Which puts it in the same category as others who claim "I saw a (insert alien/cryptid/mythical animal/etc." that's left no actual evidence of its existance whatsoever. Nice story, but on its own it doesn't mean much. Which makes it a matter of his personal belief and not a matter of fact.

cormac

[cormac mac airt]

Are you aware that the same is true for the one possibility that no xts have ever been here? Or do you think it's only true for the countless possibilities that they have?

I think one can't base an argument on evidence they don't have. Which is what AA proponents are doing all the time.

cormac

[quillius]

His statement here (in part):

Which puts it in the same category as others who claim "I saw a (insert alien/cryptid/mythical animal/etc." that's left no actual evidence of its existance whatsoever. Nice story, but on its own it doesn't mean much. Which makes it a matter of his personal belief and not a matter of fact.

cormac

that doesnt constitute 'want' though does it?

from my understanding McG didnt believe in such 'nonsense' prior to his own sighting and subsequent investigation which led him to his belief (although he doesnt see it as belief but knowledge....thats a different debate) therefore I dont see why he would want it to be ET?

[quillius]

I think one can't base an argument on evidence they don't have. Which is what AA proponents are doing all the time.

cormac

and yet throughout the years there have been many 'explanations' given for various UFO events....and these explanations were not based on evidence, but yet they are accepted, even when obviously ludicrous to say the least.

[cormac mac airt]

that doesnt constitute 'want' though does it?

from my understanding McG didnt believe in such 'nonsense' prior to his own sighting and subsequent investigation which led him to his belief (although he doesnt see it as belief but knowledge....thats a different debate) therefore I dont see why he would want it to be ET?

It doesn't matter "when" he believed it, it still doesn't make his belief a fact. And his claim that "I saw one myself" instead of a more neutral "I saw something that 'might' have been extraterrestrial in origin but I'm not sure (or some such)" pretty well makes it a matter of what he wants to believe and not what is known to be a fact.

and yet throughout the years there have been many explanations given for various UFO events....and these explanations were not based on evidence, but yet they are accepted, even when obviously ludicrous to say the least.

And still AA proponents don't seem to understand that "unexplained" doesn't automatically equate to "extraterrestrial".

cormac

[quillius]

It doesn't matter "when" he believed it, it still doesn't make his belief a fact. And his claim that "I saw one myself" instead of a more neutral "I saw something that 'might' have been extraterrestrial in origin but I'm not sure (or some such)" pretty well makes it a matter of what he wants to believe and not what is known to be a fact.

isnt it important to ask why was the said conclusion reached? why did he remove the word 'might' from his sentence? the answer to these questions dont equal 'want' by default IMO.....

And still AA proponents don't seem to understand that "unexplained" doesn't automatically equate to "extraterrestrial".

cormac

so both sides have faults

[cormac mac airt]

isnt it important to ask why was the said conclusion reached? why did he remove the word 'might' from his sentence? the answer to these questions dont equal 'want' by default IMO.....

so both sides have faults

Speaking for myself, I'm not interested in why he said what he said. I'm interested in actual, verifiable facts. And yet, with over 50 years of trying to convince people that extraterrestrials not only exist (which even I admit to the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe), but have also been here and interacted with humanity, they've not produced a single bit of verifiable evidence to support that conclusion. Yet we're just supposed to believe it.

Someone's personal experiences, hear-say, redacted military documents, etcetra are much like Nostradamus' predictions. One can formulate pretty much any conclusion one wants, depending on how they wish to interpret the information.

We're only human.

cormac

[Alantheanylyst]

I would just like to say that people like Hazzard,cormac and bmk are just flaming and should stop... McG posted tons of data and pictures and usefull links maybe some actualy were real events.

On the other hand those 3 and probably more are doing nothing but flaming no usefull material from any of those.

Maybe bad attitude...but hey they just want to see " proof " ...

This forums should be more moderated in lines of attitude.. stop provoking start posting..

Where is boony these days? The guy was perfect example of calm and datafulled debates.

When I first found this site ,it looked like a good place to, chew the fat , so to speak , over all things U.F.O. and E.T .

I have to say that the amount of trolling of some posters by others is beyond the pale .

Admin should nip it in the bud but never seem to , anyone finding this site and seeing the bating that goes on unchecked , would be very reluctant in my opinion to engage in open discussion.

One guy who used to post on here , Sky Eagle , was the butt of it for a long time , now the McGuffin seems to be the new whipping boy .

We are all grown ups and I am no shrinking violet myself but some of the blatant ridiculing is at best childish and at worst sinister.

[nopeda]

I'm not really impressed by drawings of questionable provenance or validity nor of grainy pictures which are reminiscent of movie stills from 50's and 60's low budget "B" movies about 'alien invasions'. If this is what constitutes evidence of ET's then it's no wonder that AA proponents get laughted at.

It does not look like anything out of a movie. It looks like it was taken with a flash bulb mounted on a camera. If it was from an old movie it wouldn't look like it was taken on color film by a camera with a flash bulb imo. If it's a hoax it looks like it was deliberately set up to be a hoax, not something from a 50's or 60's movie.

[TheMacGuffin]

I would just like to say that people like Hazzard,cormac and bmk are just flaming and should stop... McG posted tons of data and pictures and usefull links maybe some actualy were real events.

On the other hand those 3 and probably more are doing nothing but flaming no usefull material from any of those.

Maybe bad attitude...but hey they just want to see " proof " ...

This forums should be more moderated in lines of attitude.. stop provoking start posting..

Where is boony these days? The guy was perfect example of calm and datafulled debates.

Thank you for saying that.

I have pointed out many times how I get attacked and flamed constantly by people who have never posted any information at all, and whose purpose on here is only to attack those of us on the other side. No one ever seems to moderate them, either, but that is definitely not the case for those of us on the other side of the question.

[TheMacGuffin]

Speaking for myself, I'm not interested in why he said what he said. I'm interested in actual, verifiable facts. And yet, with over 50 years of trying to convince people that extraterrestrials not only exist (which even I admit to the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe), but have also been here and interacted with humanity, they've not produced a single bit of verifiable evidence to support that conclusion. Yet we're just supposed to believe it.

Someone's personal experiences, hear-say, redacted military documents, etcetra are much like Nostradamus' predictions. One can formulate pretty much any conclusion one wants, depending on how they wish to interpret the information.

We're only human.

cormac

You sound to me like someone who's mind is already made up, and there's obviously no point in my trying to convince you of anything.

All I can say is that if you had seen the things I did, your viewpoint would be VERY different. Count on it.

[TheMacGuffin]

Hello cormac, may I ask how you arrived at the part 'what you want to believe'???

I wouldn't say that I "wanted" to believe any of it.

You're right, Quillus, that I never took the subject of UFOs seriously before I saw one, and then was given other information about them when I was in the military. I never paid any attention to UFOs before that.

As for Cormac, his mind is obviously made up that there's nothing to it, so there's little point in arguing with him.

[TheMacGuffin]

His statement here (in part):

Which puts it in the same category as others who claim "I saw a (insert alien/cryptid/mythical animal/etc." that's left no actual evidence of its existance whatsoever. Nice story, but on its own it doesn't mean much. Which makes it a matter of his personal belief and not a matter of fact.

Oh, it was a "fact", all right, and my personal beliefs had nothing to do with it.

[cormac mac airt]

You sound to me like someone who's mind is already made up, and there's obviously no point in my trying to convince you of anything.

All I can say is that if you had seen the things I did, your viewpoint would be VERY different. Count on it.

As I've said before I'm interested in actual, verifiable facts that would support such a conclusion. To date, I've not seen any nor have AA proponents ever presented any. Only claims, speculations, innuendo, redacted documents, twisted logic, etc. It would be nice, for once, if believers actually presented some meat to this wish-sandwich.

cormac

[Just Dave]

Thank you for saying that.

I have pointed out many times how I get attacked and flamed constantly by people who have never posted any information at all, and whose purpose on here is only to attack those of us on the other side. No one ever seems to moderate them, either, but that is definitely not the case for those of us on the other side of the question.

Yes i saw more than just once per topic that is why i posted that i would like to debate such material that people here post but in most cases it starts good and ends in flames towards each other, cant we all just get along and see the material and approach it more civil. Nopeda is making a good example too.

Anyways the starting line is and probably will be that something happened, is happening or will happen. SETI is saying that in 20 years they will be able to pick up any alien signals or transmissions once they'll upgrade to more antena arrays, the director of that observatory said with alot of confidence. That was on documentary shown on ngc month ago.

My thoughts are similar i think that something will happen in next 20 years... what excatly i don't know but i have a gut feeling and i dare to say it isn't a good feeling.

[S2F]

When I first found this site ,it looked like a good place to, chew the fat , so to speak , over all things U.F.O. and E.T .

I have to say that the amount of trolling of some posters by others is beyond the pale .

Admin should nip it in the bud but never seem to , anyone finding this site and seeing the bating that goes on unchecked , would be very reluctant in my opinion to engage in open discussion.

One guy who used to post on here , Sky Eagle , was the butt of it for a long time , now the McGuffin seems to be the new whipping boy .

We are all grown ups and I am no shrinking violet myself but some of the blatant ridiculing is at best childish and at worst sinister.

If you think the pro ETH crowd is any better you are sorely mistaken. I admit that debates can get a little heated around here however the 'believers' are just as much to blame for that as the skeptics. It all stems from the fact that some people can't seem to get past the 'us vs. them' attitude that seems to pervade this particular topic. I try my best to see it as a joint effort at understanding a complex subject though even I stray from that path from time to time. Perhaps it is a character flaw of mine but I just can't abide willful ignorance. I'm here to learn, not all of us (skeptics and believers) are.

[keithisco]

Yes, I see. I'm not a physician but a PhD, which does make me an expert in certain fields. It was not meaningless experience to me, of course, but unless you have seen things like these for yourself you simply cannot judge.

That would be a PhD in which area specifically?? Where can we find your Published Paper (as all PhD's would have)?

[Alantheanylyst]

If you think the pro ETH crowd is any better you are sorely mistaken. I admit that debates can get a little heated around here however the 'believers' are just as much to blame for that as the skeptics. It all stems from the fact that some people can't seem to get past the 'us vs. them' attitude that seems to pervade this particular topic. I try my best to see it as a joint effort at understanding a complex subject though even I stray from that path from time to time. Perhaps it is a character flaw of mine but I just can't abide willful ignorance. I'm here to learn, not all of us (skeptics and believers) are.

Not addressing debate, I am talking about constant bating and trolling there is a vast difference.

I watched it before as the hounds rounded on a specific poster and now he seems to have gone ,there is a new fox in town .

It is an observation , I have made nothing more nothing less.

Of course extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence , no one is disputing that .

But some of the patronising stuff that goes on on here is off the scale at times .

A lot of it is tantamount to calling another poster an out and out liar .

I would just add that I am neither a believer nor a non believer , I have an open mind .

Edited January 14, 2013 by Alantheanylyst

[TheMacGuffin]

That would be a PhD in which area specifically?? Where can we find your Published Paper (as all PhD's would have)?

I'm not giving out my name on here. Virtually no one does that, and I have no desire to become the latest "practice target" for the disinformation crowd.

Edited January 14, 2013 by TheMacGuffin

[TheMacGuffin]

Not addressing debate, I am talking about constant bating and trolling there is a vast difference.

I watched it before as the hounds rounded on a specific poster and now he seems to have gone ,there is a new fox in town .

It is an observation , I have made nothing more nothing less.

Of course extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence , no one is disputing that .

But some of the patronising stuff that goes on on here is off the scale at times .

A lot of it is tantamount to calling another poster an out and out liar .

I would just add that I am neither a believer nor a non believer , I have an open mind .

They try very hard to bait me all the time in hopes of getting me kicked off, which is the same kind of tactic they used on poor Sky Eagle every day. They don't miss him at all because they attacked him continually when he was actually here on these boards.

I am very familiar with their tactics, and in general I give as good as I get. Their problem with me is not that I have given out too little information but too much, although I have not told everything that I know.

People are free to believe me or not, but I am not here for the fame, fortune and glamour that comes with posting on a message board. I am not selling books, DVDs, lectures or my own website, and I am certainly not hanging around because I enjoy the pleasant company of the disinformers and "skeptoids". Their job is not to discuss anything but to shut off all discussion and keep people quiet, and they have worked very hard to do that with me.

That ought to tell you something.

[Crikey]

As a matter of interest, what possible motive could aliens have for wanting to visit earth anyway, either now or in the past?

[TheMacGuffin]

Yes i saw more than just once per topic that is why i posted that i would like to debate such material that people here post but in most cases it starts good and ends in flames towards each other, cant we all just get along and see the material and approach it more civil. Nopeda is making a good example too.

That's another tactic. They will start a flame war in hopes of getting a topic shut down, although you should also look at the topics they completely ignore in hopes that they will just disappear and be forgotten.

Only someone as naive as Sweet Polly Purebread would imagine that many of these people are here to have an open and honest discussion about UFOs. That's not how the system works, and they have been using these same tactics for decades, long before the Internet era. LOL

[TheMacGuffin]

As a matter of interest, what possible motive could aliens have for wanting to visit earth anyway, either now or in the past?

I don't think it's a classical imperialist motive of needing labor, land and natural resources, but they may indeed have a use for the "biological materials" that are here.