Advanced Aerial Vehicle Theory

[Minimalists]

On 6/26/2019 at 11:14 PM, Ironside said:

There is not one thing in that wiki that makes me thinks he's a liar besides the fact he they say hes a liar..

i forget who said it but ''Absence of evidence is not Evidence of Absence''

You're welcome btw  also most elements have several isotopic values that arent stable. Gold has 36 Unstable versions only one is stable.

Quote

i forget who said it but ''Absence of evidence is not Evidence of Absence''

@Ironside That would be Carl Sagan.

[Dejarma]

On 27/06/2019 at 4:14 AM, Ironside said:

i forget who said it but ''Absence of evidence is not Evidence of Absence''

imo this saying had good reasoning in people's thinking 30+ years ago.

would this saying mean something in 200 years time do you think?

will 'some' folk still be pondering over the meaning of crop circles in 200 years time? think about it

edit to add:

i must ask= evidence of what? what does this saying mean to you? just out of interest 

Edited June 29, 2019 by Dejarma

[Ironside]

20 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

providing info is providing stories.. that means nothing to me! calling someone a lazy naysayer is a cop-out in a discussion of this nature...

i deal only in facts--- not stories. YOU can not provide any FACTS with regards to this enigma.. i can.

here's a fact:

in 80+ years of so-called modern ufology; NO ONE has produced a fact regarding alien visitation.. as i always say=== there are no facts- that's a FACT!

I have not mentioned alien visitation anywhere throughout  this thread - fact 

Edited June 29, 2019 by Ironside

[Ironside]

10 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

imo this saying had good reasoning in people's thinking 30+ years ago.

would this saying mean something in 200 years time do you think?

 

Go tell that to the many hard working detectives in your local police force my friend... It means exactly what it sounds like its all round self explanatory 

Edited June 29, 2019 by Ironside

[Dejarma]

2 minutes ago, Ironside said:

I have not mentioned alien visitation anywhere throughout  this thread - fact 

so what are you suggesting then? this is your thread= what is the point of it then? i'm confused Sir

[Dejarma]

2 minutes ago, Ironside said:

Go tell that to the many hard working detectives in your local police force my friend...

nope, you've lost me there-- & probably quite a few others i'd guess- but there ya go, what do i know

[Ironside]

Just now, Dejarma said:

so what are you suggesting then? this is your thread= what is the point of it then? i'm confused Sir

If you read my original post i was trying to propose an alternate theory to lazars whole "archaeological dig" scenario. If that be the case

[Ironside]

Just now, Dejarma said:

nope, you've lost me there-- & probably quite a few others i'd guess- but there ya go, what do i know

I mean if you cant understand that i feel pretty hopeless trying to explain anything else to you. I think we have very different though processes 

[Dejarma]

1 minute ago, Ironside said:

If you read my original post i was trying to propose an alternate theory to lazars whole "archaeological dig" scenario. If that be the case

yeah i did read it mate! Lazar claims to have worked on alien tech= which means aliens visitation, doesn't it!?!?

[Ironside]

20 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

Absence of evidence is not Evidence of Absence

Its a phrase to live by it was originally conceived  by some greek philospher *citation needed* it's timeless imo

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

Edited June 29, 2019 by Ironside
Link

[Ironside]

1 minute ago, Dejarma said:

yeah i did read it mate! Lazar claims to have worked on alien tech= which means aliens visitation, doesn't it!?!?

Thats his assumption, not mine.

[Dejarma]

2 minutes ago, Ironside said:

I mean if you cant understand that i feel pretty hopeless trying to explain anything else to you. I think we have very different though processes 

class me as a uniformed nay saying idiot & help me out here= try explaining it

[Dejarma]

1 minute ago, Ironside said:

Thats his assumption, not mine.

he is not making an assumption, is he!?!? he's telling us it's alien tech= he was there involved, apartently== so what are you on about?

[Dejarma]

6 minutes ago, Ironside said:

Its a phrase to live by it was originally conceived  by some greek philospher *citation needed* it's timeless imo

yeah timeless for those who feel a need to live in a fantasy world

[Ironside]

1 minute ago, Dejarma said:

class me as a uniformed nay saying idiot & help me out here= try explaining it

Say there was a murder.

No physical evidence found at the crime scene aside from a cadaver. (Absence of evidence)

Do we assume there are no suspects because there is no evidence of one?

 

[Ironside]

1 minute ago, Dejarma said:

yeah timeless for those who feel a need to live in a fantasy world

My god you are insufferable 

 

Like i said detectives stand by this logical line of thinking otherwise every crime would be a cold case

Edited June 29, 2019 by Ironside

[Ironside]

I dont want this to devolve into petty argumentative bull****

[Dejarma]

4 minutes ago, Ironside said:

Say there was a murder.

No physical evidence found at the crime scene aside from a cadaver. (Absence of evidence)

Do we assume there are no suspects because there is no evidence of one?

 

the usual ridiculous rebuttal-- seriously all due respect.

there IS a cadaver in your scenario....

in the ufo/ aliens on this planet scenario there's a <STORY> told to you there's a cadaver== when you've worked out the difference between these 2 scenarios let me know 

[Ironside]

2 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

the usual ridiculous rebuttal-- seriously all due respect.

there IS a cadaver in your scenario....

in the ufo/ aliens on this planet scenario there's a <STORY> told to you there's a cadaver== when you've worked out the difference between these 2 scenarios let me know 

The scenario was to explain to you the proverb not the entirety of the theory and i feel like you have the usual ridiculous rebuttal of hardline skeptics - focus on semantics 

[Dejarma]

16 minutes ago, Ironside said:

No physical evidence found at the crime scene aside from a cadaver. (Absence of evidence)

Absence of evidence of what? what is there Absence of evidence of? you're confusing me!

[Ironside]

10 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

Absence of evidence of what? what is there Absence of evidence of? you're confusing me!

A suspect? Look probably not the best explaination ill submit to that. Its hard to come up with intellectual conversation while im trying to rewire my car

Edited June 29, 2019 by Ironside

[Dejarma]

Just now, Ironside said:

A suspect? Look probably not the best explaination ill submit to that

in your scenario there is physical evidence= <the body> from that, data is looked at etc... yes? ask Sherlock

now (this is the important bit- the deciding thing if you like) in the <<in the ufo/ aliens on this planet scenario>> scenario==== there is NO body/ cadaver, is there.. just a story of one... could you do me the honour of at least thinking about it before you reply

cheers mate..

peace.

dej....

[toast]

On 27.6.2019 at 4:43 AM, Ironside said:

 (...) the point is electric cars were suppressed due to the fact that many high profile figures in the early 20th century had huge stakes in the oil extraction and processing industries. electric vehicles = no money in oil except for maybe lamps and lubrication

No, there was no suppression of electric cars, or better said, a suppression of the technology of electric driven vehicles of various kind. At the very beginning of the 20th century, the 2nd industrial revolution was in full process and a key factor of its progress was logistics by trucks/trains/ships. Even today, 100 years later and with a much more advanced electric technology, the logistic demands cannot be fulfilled with electric powered vehicles. So, electric powered vehicles would not had been an option 100 years ago because of an ineffective vehicle weight (batteries)/payload ratio, a non-existent power grid that could deliver the amount of power needed and short range of e-vehicles in general. In a nutshell, the selection for oil based fuels driven vehicles wasnt a conspiracy, it was a logical consequence based on the demands.

[Ironside]

2 minutes ago, toast said:

No, there was no suppression of electric cars, or better said, a suppression of the technology of electric driven vehicles of various kind. At the very beginning of the 20th century, the 2nd industrial revolution was in full process and a key factor of its progress was logistics by trucks/trains/ships. Even today, 100 years later and with a much more advanced electric technology, the logistic demands cannot be fulfilled with electric powered vehicles. So, electric powered vehicles would not had been an option 100 years ago because of an ineffective vehicle weight (batteries)/payload ratio, a non-existent power grid that could deliver the amount of power needed and short range of e-vehicles in general. In a nutshell, the selection for oil based fuels driven vehicles wasnt a conspiracy, it was a logical consequence based on the demands.

Very well spoken. Makes absolute sense  I still feel like Henry Ford would have tried to supress it either way right?

Edited June 29, 2019 by Ironside