How many of you can get to the starting line?

[sslama]

The Possibility Principle.....letting your mind play with a belief. It can shift your thinking to become true. You can give your left brain something to think about so it stops sensoring what is actually possible. I believe it is possible if your mind is expanded enough to let it in

[mcrom901]

The Possibility Principle.....letting your mind play with a belief. It can shift your thinking to become true. You can give your left brain something to think about so it stops sensoring what is actually possible. I believe it is possible if your mind is expanded enough to let it in

so if one is open minded about certain possibilities about whatever, then said possibility becomes factual?

in other words, as nopeda is trying to suggest, critical thinking should be discarded in order for any belief to take hold?

No it doesn't, but it does mean that there's a possibility of xt influence. Accepting that fact is the starting line, though apparently not everyone can get that "far" with this topic.

[TheMacGuffin]

Riiiiight, that's probably what I'd say if I were gullible enought to believe in unevidenced ET's visiting earth while the various governments were carrying on with their multi-billion dollar "Black Projects" right under my nose. Gotta love the gullibility of the AA crowd, they make it soooo easy for governments and their military to hide what they do.

cormac

On the other hand, maybe you're the one being played for a sucker.

[cormac mac airt]

On the other hand, maybe you're the one being played for a sucker.

Let's see. On the one hand a minimum of 50 BILLION dollars for Black Projects versus, what was it you had again? Oh yeah, no evidence ET's exist. I know which one's more likely.

cormac

[Space Commander Travis]

You realize of course that it depends on how the radar is configured right? Or do you think that enemy jets have their transponders turned on? Configured correctly, radar can get returns on a wide variety of airborne objects, even birds. Transponders were only invented as an assistance to commercial radar and are not required to detect objects.

yes, but th air defense radars are a different kettle of fish to regular civilian air traffic radars, aren't they? You'd expect them to be an order of magnitude better able to detect something that didn't want to be deteted. We're talking air traffic radar here, since there isn't air defense coverage within the USA, as was found out on 9/11. Which is perhaps a case in point.

[Space Commander Travis]

Riiiiight, that's probably what I'd say if I were gullible enought to believe in unevidenced ET's visiting earth while the various governments were carrying on with their multi-billion dollar "Black Projects" right under my nose. Gotta love the gullibility of the AA crowd, they make it soooo easy for governments and their military to hide what they do.

cormac

Oh no, not (in the words of the vase of petunias) the "Secret Military Black Projects" theory again. So the Military would spend decades and billions of dollars, roubles or dong on developing something in ultra secrecy, and would then trundle about in the skies over inhabited areas, in full view of everyone, trusting that anyone who did see it would assume that it was a UFO? is there any logic to doing that at all?

* Anyway, it's not AAs we're talking about here, that's the other thread, this is just A's.

[quillius]

As for the professional UFO "skeptics", I have never been able to convince a single one of them about anything in my life, regardless of what evidence I had. I have never seen them budge a single inch on any UFO case or admit there was anything to it, no matter what.

Have you ever seen one of them who would change their views one iota on a single UFO case? I never have. It's like trying to argue with religious fundamentalists about the Bible. Nothing you can say will have even the slightest effect.

Can you think of any exceptions to this? Ever? I can't, no matter whether it's at UM or anywhere else.

its about winnning the argument rather than getting to the truth....

look how many pages I argued with Ryleh as to whether Santa is claimed to be seen more than Aliens, these discussions wouldnt happen if its progress we are looking for. Pride has such a big part to play on this forum (probably others too), once we type something out we feel like we must defend it come hell or high water......

I think we are all guilty of this at some point or another, myself included.

I guess its caused by the extremes, skeptics who wont even admit to some UFOs being an unknown and cannot be explained by what we know today, to the other extreme of if its in the air its a UFO (UFO=alien).

keep dropping those hints though I am sure that many of us are following your trail

[S2F]

Pride has such a big part to play on this forum (probably others too), once we type something out we feel like we must defend it come hell or high water......

I think we are all guilty of this at some point or another, myself included.

I think you're right about that quill as I have had to swallow my pride and admit error on more than one occasion myself. (I know, I know, I find it a little hard to believe myself! )

It's a little counter intuitive but some people don't want to look stupid by admitting they were wrong but sticking to an erroneous claim is even worse. I've seen it from both sides on occasion.

Edit to add: Not that admitting error makes one look stupid, quite the opposite really. Just wanted to clarify that.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Slave2Fate

[nopeda]

You realize of course that it depends on how the radar is configured right? Or do you think that enemy jets have their transponders turned on? Configured correctly, radar can get returns on a wide variety of airborne objects, even birds. Transponders were only invented as an assistance to commercial radar and are not required to detect objects.

It's significant that they are used at all and radar isn't enough.

[nopeda]

This is logic 1on1 ... you have trillions of solar systems that are very very similar to ours.. so saying there is no other life or no proof exists of such thing is pure ignorance...

The problem is in vastness of space for start... You will find building blocks of life on all of those earthlike planets... missing materials from which primitve life started here on earth, is in my theory brought by asteroids and meteorites... so that brings us to how many similar events happened out there..

If drake equation would be at least 1% right we are looking at possible 50 alien civilizations nearby ( by nearby i mean million of light years away ). Even then the real science made calculations of probability ( they took in all that we knew at the time ). I for one don't need any proof of such a obvious thing...

....the question for me is when?

Edit: Sorry nopeda for going abit offtopic..

You brought up a very significant aspect. With all the stars out there it's almost certain there are beings who are traveling to different star systems. The bigger question is whether any have been to this one or not.

[nopeda]

nopeda, on 15 January 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

No it doesn't, but it does mean that there's a possibility of xt influence. Accepting that fact is the starting line, though apparently not everyone can get that "far" with this topic.

so if one is open minded about certain possibilities about whatever, then said possibility becomes factual?

in other words, as nopeda is trying to suggest, critical thinking should be discarded in order for any belief to take hold?

I don't consider it critical thinking to put your faith in the one possibility that no xts have ever been to this planet. To me that's as shallow thinking as a person could have. To accept the very real possibility that they have been here is a starting line from my pov, and would be a huge step up for anyone who can't consider it in a realistic way. They may not have ever been here. That's easy and another very real possibility. Since we could never know that they have never been here, putting faith in that possibility being the correct one seems pretty absurd from my pov.

[nopeda]

its about winnning the argument rather than getting to the truth....

Santa

. . .

I guess its caused by the extremes, skeptics who wont even admit to some UFOs being an unknown and cannot be explained by what we know today, to the other extreme of if its in the air its a UFO (UFO=alien).

Winning over the truth...I guess that must be it. I so often wonder if people are being more dishonest than stupid, or the other way around. I've also pointed out to people that in reality when they lie they lose by forfeit because they've given up on reality, but I guess some people think they still win somehow. Maybe if they just don't give in they feel like they win, regardless of whether what they're saying is true or even whether or not they believe it themselves. The situation Santa is in and the situation xts are in are both very different from each other. We KNOW nobody is going to millions of houses in one night, but we don't KNOW that no beings have ever been here from a different star system. To try pretending they're similar makes me wonder about dishonesty vs stupidity. I don't know of people insisting everything is a UFO, though I feel sure we could find a few who feel that none of the sightings have ever been of true xt vehicles.

[nopeda]

* Anyway, it's not AAs we're talking about here, that's the other thread, this is just A's.

Considering that they could ever have been here at all would be a starting line for a lot of people. Though they could have been here in the past but don't come around any more, or they could come around now but were not around a thousand years ago, it seems most people who accept that they could have been here in the past also accept that they could still be coming around. It's all the same from my pov. I still find it amusing that some people who disbelieve the possibility that they've been here already, don't seem to have a problem with the possibility that they could arrive next year, or next month, or in a couple of hours....

[nopeda]

A lot of cover-up types come to these forums doing their PR. A troll and debunk routine to marginalize the subject matter. Anti-alien spin doctoring that sort of thing.

Who would want to cover it up and why? I can sort of see why the government might lie to the press if they don't want people to know they really found solid evidence of xts, but who would come to forums like this to do it and why? IF some solid evidence was really found, why would they even want to lie about it unless they'd been contacted by xts and told to take that approach? If an xt vehicle did "crash" and bodies were found I believe it would more likely be deliberate rather than an accident. It seems that would be them giving us something that SHOULD be made public unless they contacted officials in the government and told them otherwise.

[Crikey]

The Possibility Principle.....letting your mind play with a belief. It can shift your thinking to become true...

Good point, Prof. Gertrude Shmeidler did experiments some years ago that showed how closed-minded people seemed to dig themselves into a 'pit of disbelief' which made them score below average in ESP tests. (the 'Sheep-Goat Effect)

Gettit?- they should simply have scored average, yet something was dragging them down to below average!

She concluded- "This was inexplicable by the physical laws we knew, it implied unexplored processes in the universe, an exciting new field for research. From then on, naturally, my primary research interest was parapsychology"

http://www.parapsych.org/members/g_schmeidler.html

Dr. Mario Varvoglis- "The more an individual harbors a reductionistic view of the world, the less chance such phenomena will emerge; the more one is interested in interconnectedness, and open to psi experiences, the more likely the world will "respond" by creating such experiences".

http://archived.parapsych.org/sheep_goat_effect.htm

[cormac mac airt]

Considering that they could ever have been here at all would be a starting line for a lot of people. Though they could have been here in the past but don't come around any more, or they could come around now but were not around a thousand years ago, it seems most people who accept that they could have been here in the past also accept that they could still be coming around. It's all the same from my pov. I still find it amusing that some people who disbelieve the possibility that they've been here already, don't seem to have a problem with the possibility that they could arrive next year, or next month, or in a couple of hours....

Who would want to cover it up and why? I can sort of see why the government might lie to the press if they don't want people to know they really found solid evidence of xts, but who would come to forums like this to do it and why? IF some solid evidence was really found, why would they even want to lie about it unless they'd been contacted by xts and told to take that approach? If an xt vehicle did "crash" and bodies were found I believe it would more likely be deliberate rather than an accident. It seems that would be them giving us something that SHOULD be made public unless they contacted officials in the government and told them otherwise.

This is the whole problem with the Aliens/Ancient Astronauts/ET claims IMO. There are a ridiculous amount of "could have's", "maybe's", "might have been's", "what if's" and a complete and total lack of verifiable physical evidence of ET's existance. Only a convenient excuse for not having any. I actually await the day when believers quit making excuses for the lack of verifiable evidence and actually present some, but since it hasn't happened in the last 50 years I'm not going to hold my breath waiting on it.

cormac

[bmk1245]

that sarbacher was told about it?

http://www.president...-interview-1983

[...]

What a "surprise", your question left unanswered... You are definitely on McG's ignore list.

[topsecretresearch]

Who would want to cover it up and why? I can sort of see why the government might lie to the press if they don't want people to know they really found solid evidence of xts, but who would come to forums like this to do it and why? IF some solid evidence was really found, why would they even want to lie about it unless they'd been contacted by xts and told to take that approach? If an xt vehicle did "crash" and bodies were found I believe it would more likely be deliberate rather than an accident. It seems that would be them giving us something that SHOULD be made public unless they contacted officials in the government and told them otherwise.

You're too naive. Read the paper.

[topsecretresearch]

This is the whole problem with the Aliens/Ancient Astronauts/ET claims IMO. There are a ridiculous amount of "could have's", "maybe's", "might have been's", "what if's" and a complete and total lack of verifiable physical evidence of ET's existance. Only a convenient excuse for not having any. I actually await the day when believers quit making excuses for the lack of verifiable evidence and actually present some, but since it hasn't happened in the last 50 years I'm not going to hold my breath waiting on it.

cormac

Actually there is physcial trace evidence. Ignorance is a bliss to some people.

Edited January 17, 2013 by topsecretresearch

[cormac mac airt]

Actually there is physcial trace evidence. Ignorance is a bliss to some people.

Good to hear you're happy. Congratulations.

cormac

[DingoLingo]

Physical trace evidence.. hmmmm...

ok.. just a quick one.. there have been all these people who have been abducted.. and have supposedly had something implanted in them.. funny enough..when the 'implants' are tested there is nothing to show for it..

like crashed ufo's.. no evidence.. or if evidence is put forth.. it ends up being something man made..

so lets see..

UFO's seen in the sky - blurry photo's of a fake ufo.. - No hard evidence - FACT

People meeting aliens - testimonies of different aliens - No hard evidence - FACT

Crashed UFO's - testimonies from people who have seen it. Odd things put forward as Alien - No hard evidence - FACT

Government Coverup's of UFO's - again testimonies .. supposed reports.. and I could go on.. - again No hard evidence - FACT

Ancient Aliens - there is a nice long thread on this which to be honest.. shows there is nothing in this at all so - No hard evidence - FACT

So you see.. there is no hard evidence of ufo's.. there never has been..

[topsecretresearch]

DingoLingo all your points are wrong because you don't know much. It's the assume something is false and therefore type thinking.

I think a lot of peope have this popular culture perception of UFOs and maybe they come to forums like these assuming its all rubbish. A lot of people don't want to learn, they want to cheat on test and bend their logic around what's socially acceptable.

[DingoLingo]

DingoLingo all your points are wrong because you don't know much. It's the assume something is false and therefore type thinking.

I think a lot of peope have this popular culture perception of UFOs and maybe they come to forums like these assuming its all rubbish. A lot of people don't want to learn, they want to cheat on test and bend their logic around what's socially acceptable.

hmmm I do believe I think I have said this to the Guffin.. hello kettle my name is pot..

oh and on a side note here top.. it seems you have some undeniable evidence that can prove that ufo's and all that are real.. please.. share it with the class.. we would all love to see it..

problem is there.. like Guff.. you cant because you do not have any... all you have is speculations no hard facts or evidence..

The whole UFO crowd are like snakeoil salesmen.. very good a spinning a believable story.. but when you get the bottle home and try it.. it just does not seem to work as advertised..

Edited January 17, 2013 by DingoLingo

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

DingoLingo all your points are wrong because you don't know much. It's the assume something is false and therefore type thinking.

I think a lot of peope have this popular culture perception of UFOs and maybe they come to forums like these assuming its all rubbish. A lot of people don't want to learn, they want to cheat on test and bend their logic around what's socially acceptable.

are photos good evidence? They're good secondary evidence to support a theory but not evidence in and of themselves.

are eye-witness testimonies good evidence? They're good secondary evidence to support a theory, but a dozen people can see a crime and report a dozen different and often contradictory things. Also, people lie.

are crashed UFOs good evidence? Actually yes. They'd be perfect. Where are they again? Ohh you've seen it. See above.

government coverups? Well by their very nature you're never going to find evidence of a coverup, unless it's a really rubbish one. And we do have evidence (that being our old friend "testimony") that "it were unknown aliens" has been used to cover up human technology that the government didn't want their enemies to find out about.

ancient aliens? Ohh good lord, there's LESS evidence of them then there is of Roswell.

[quillius]

Physical trace evidence.. hmmmm...

yes, there has been trace evidence, this is a fact I believe.

ok.. just a quick one.. there have been all these people who have been abducted.. and have supposedly had something implanted in them.. funny enough..when the 'implants' are tested there is nothing to show for it..

ok I dont think we should throw all these claims together, way too many with Psychological issues making claims. However, I do know of one or two abduction claims that are rather interesting....

like crashed ufo's.. no evidence.. or if evidence is put forth.. it ends up being something man made..

if it happened I dont think getting hold of evidence would be that easy do you?

UFO's seen in the sky - blurry photo's of a fake ufo.. - No hard evidence - FACT

??? blurry photos of fake UFO??? are you suggesting anomolies have not been phtographed and any that have are fake? that is certainly not a fact, although I assume you have something to show that all UFO photos are blurry fakes??? are photos ever hard evidence? unsure of point you are making

People meeting aliens - testimonies of different aliens - No hard evidence - FACT

is testimony ever hard evidence? . not sure of your point here?

Crashed UFO's - testimonies from people who have seen it. Odd things put forward as Alien - No hard evidence - FACT

Government Coverup's of UFO's - again testimonies .. supposed reports.. and I could go on.. - again No hard evidence - FACT

no hard evidence to show a cover up? really? (this doesnt by default mean they covered up ET, maybe just the belief that this phenomena was ET!!!) but a cover up was definately happening throughout the past.

Ancient Aliens - there is a nice long thread on this which to be honest.. shows there is nothing in this at all so - No hard evidence - FACT

ok AA not my area

So you see.. there is no hard evidence of ufo's.. there never has been..

wow so UFOs dont exist???? ok