Where do aliens come from? (Read on)

[CeresExpo2000]

13 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

To word it differently: not believing in existence doesn't necessarily mean you believe in non-existence. A neutral stance basically means not taking either side. 

Evidence is raw observations/data used to support a theory. It's the interpretation of the evidence that matters. You can have different interpretations for the same observations/data. So based on that, the correct phrase is "X theory isn't properly supported", not "there isn't any evidence for X". There's a plethora of data that can be used as evidence for whatever.

Interpretations of evidence for the visitation of alien beings is challenging because the analysis is done mainly through psychoanalytical methods. Basically, you have to be good at understanding human personality, otherwise you'll be lost in the midst of a plethora of misinformation that people communicate.

The data that I personally use is text and words that I interpret as being intentionally leaked papers, whistle blown information, and observations made both in a regular fashion and controlled remote viewing.

 

Some people will wait for the UFO to land in the backyard of the White House.

[badeskov]

13 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

To word it differently: not believing in existence doesn't necessarily mean you believe in non-existence. A neutral stance basically means not taking either side. 

To add to this: I believe in the existence of ET life out there; I do not believe that ET has ever visited Earth. It is strictly my personal opinion and beliefs I hold based on probabilities as we have evidence of neither. By probabilities I mean the following:

1. I personally find it highly unlikely that we are the only species in the Universe given the vastness of it. I just don't think we have the technology yet to detect ET (we have not even scratched the surface yet).
2. I personally find it highly unlikely that we not only have been visited, but more specifically are being visited. Especially the latter is something we should see evidence of. Naturally, if ET visited some 100 million years ago we'd probably never know.   

 

13 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

<snip>

Cheers,
Badeskov

[badeskov]

30 minutes ago, CeresExpo2000 said:

Some people will wait for the UFO to land in the backyard of the White House.

I couldn't care less if ET (NOT UFOs) lands on the White House lawn. If ET even arrives in the Solar system and especially enters cis-lunar orbit, we would *know*. All space agencies would be screaming it from the rooftops along with the hundreds of thousands of amateur astronomers watching the skies from their back yards everyday.

The "landing on the White House lawn" is an old, worn out and a worthless excuse for those not understanding what they are talking about. Grow up.

Cheers,
Badeskov

 

[Boozemonkey]

Space......

[jaylemurph]

13 hours ago, CeresExpo2000 said:

Some people will wait for the UFO to land in the backyard of the White House.

And some people will always be there to buy into whatever a con-man is selling.

I know who will look sillier sooner.

--Jaylemurph

[stereologist]

On 8/30/2017 at 10:12 PM, OntarioSquatch said:

To word it differently: not believing in existence doesn't necessarily mean you believe in non-existence. A neutral stance basically means not taking either side. 

Evidence is raw observations/data used to support a theory. It's the interpretation of the evidence that matters. You can have different interpretations for the same observations/data. So based on that, the correct phrase is "X theory isn't properly supported", not "there isn't any evidence for X". There's a plethora of data that can be used as evidence for whatever.

Interpretations of evidence for the visitation of alien beings is challenging because the analysis is done mainly through psychoanalytical methods. Basically, you have to be good at understanding human personality, otherwise you'll be lost in the midst of a plethora of misinformation that people communicate.

The data that I personally use is text and words that I interpret as being intentionally leaked papers, whistle blown information, and observations made both in a regular fashion and controlled remote viewing.

 

I know what a neutral stance is and not believing in or believing in not is not neutral.

There is a lack of evidence for ET visitation. Lights in the sky is not evidence of visitation. It is lights in the sky. Sure there are plenty of people that make the wild and unjustified inference that the lights are alien craft. I've been there and seen that in person.

The use of techniques to recover memories is well known to result in false memories. Whatever is collected from these procedures has to be treated as fiction. At best it can be used to search for real evidence.

So you rely on reading what others have written? You believe that these are leaked papers or reported by whistle blowers. Okay. How do you determine these are not hoaxes? I see plenty of online hoaxes from whistle blowers and leaked government documents that try to tell me that the Gulf Stream has stopped, that a planet of doom is on its way, that underground highways criss-cross the US, that reptilians run the government - excuse me shape shifting reptilians, that Elvis is alive, that 2012 killed most of us, etc. With a plethora of hoaxes circulating how can you differentiate between hoaxes and the real thing?

You also rely on the failed RV claims? Remote viewing is a joke. The claims of the mother ship behind Hale Bopp might have led Heaven's Gate to commit suicide. There was  no mother ship hiding behind the comet. The ludicrous claims of an active alien mining operation on Mars is another joke. The mountains of Jupiter a joke. The rings of Jupiter another joke.

Edited September 1, 2017 by stereologist

[I'mConvinced]

I think people should spend time discussing and understanding the difference between empirical and subjective evidence.

[CeresExpo2000]

17 hours ago, Boozemonkey said:

Space......

The Milky Way Galaxy.....

[OntarioSquatch]

It's important to keep the evidence as objective as possible. For instance, in the example I gave, text is the observation/data that's used as evidence to support the theory that it's leaked information. The idea that it's "leaked info" is a theory, not the evidence. Psychoanalytical methods are used to evaluate the text or words, and determine whether or not it's misinformation. The more sources that's done with, and the more consistent the info is across all of them, the more well-supported a larger theory can be that people have been dealing with an advanced organization of beings. The analysis is the hard part.

 

Edited September 1, 2017 by OntarioSquatch

[CeresExpo2000]

9 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

It's important to keep the evidence as objective as possible. For instance, in the example I gave, text is the observation/data that's used as evidence to support the theory that it's leaked information. The idea that it's "leaked info" is a theory, not the evidence. Psychoanalytical methods are used to evaluate the text or words, and determine whether or not it's misinformation. The more sources that's done with, and the more consistent the info is across all of them, the more well-supported a larger theory can be that people have been dealing with an advanced organization of beings. The analysis is the hard part.

 

So, the more witnesses, the better?

[stereologist]

21 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

It's important to keep the evidence as objective as possible. For instance, in the example I gave, text is the observation/data that's used as evidence to support the theory that it's leaked information. The idea that it's "leaked info" is a theory, not the evidence. Psychoanalytical methods are used to evaluate the text or words, and determine whether or not it's misinformation. The more sources that's done with, and the more consistent the info is across all of them, the more well-supported a larger theory can be that people have been dealing with an advanced organization of beings. The analysis is the hard part.

You of course mean theory in the sense of a wild ass unsupported guess.  Text is just text. The story it tells could be fiction. It is more than likely fiction. Psychoanalytical methods cannot determine whether or not its misinformation. Consistency of a story does mean tell anyone if the story is fiction or not. What can be used to determine if a story is fiction or not is evidence external to the story. Inconsistency can reveal problems with a story. Consistency cannot determine whether or not a story is correct.

One of the odd beliefs I often run into on the internet is the belief that the same story being copied to many websites makes the story true. The fact that search engines move those sites tot he top of their results list is another belief that the story is true. Many people also proclaim that they can feel vibes that help them determine if a story is true or that the person posting the story is honest.

A story is just a story. People can pretend that a story is leaked information. People can pretend that wistle blowers provided the information.

As a stated before the internet is rife with leaked tales of mind control projects, underground nationwide highway systems, impending doom, reptilian overlords, secret invasions by the NWO, imminent release of weapons grade diseases, alien visitations hidden to prevent mass riots, political prisons, etc.

[Colectivo]

Some from Neptune and some from uranus...

[OntarioSquatch]

40 minutes ago, CeresExpo2000 said:

So, the more witnesses, the better?

More witnesses is better in the sense that there's more data to evaluate. It doesn't necessarily increase support for the theory of alien visitation.

[Saru]

Thread cleaned

Tone down the hostilities please.

Could members also avoid reposting the same images/material over and over again.

Thank you.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

5 hours ago, CeresExpo2000 said:

The Milky Way Galaxy.....

 On their own planets, not visiting the idiot apes on this one.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Sir Wearer of Hats