The Evidence that's convinced me of ETs' Presence on Earth

a reply to: ZetaRediculian
i would also say this is is trolling.


a reply to: ben555


"no. for me thats why im here,to learn" .

"Seems more like you are here to confirm and validate your already established beliefs. Anyone that doesn't validate your beliefs is a troll."

you replied after i had stated why i was here "to learn" that i was here to validate my beliefs. what beliefs have i stated here?

i posted to say trolling ruined a thread. i stand by that.

if find it hard to understand how you want to "understand why someone believes in e.t visiting earth" does not ask any questions to anyone based on wanting to understand?

a reply to: ben555

Honestly. Do you have any other points? Or any point?

a reply to: ZetaRediculian


you are a pro-claimed genius

It's "Super Genius" and I got my degree from ACME university. Where professor Wile E. Coyote taught me himself.

i actually LOLed!! ill give you that one. funny

originally posted by: Sharted
I will also address this ....

originally posted by: Sharted


That's true of horizontal G but not vertical. It's significantly lower for the latter, and only in very short bursts can a pilot survive at 10G vertically, otherwise he will black out en.wikipedia.org...-force

Good thing the acceleration is near instantaneous according to that poster so the G force is only experienced for a very short burst. This again, is HIS hypothetical craft. 43g in a short burst with a special suit can be tolerated by people.
Address it if you must but you're wrong. No human can handle 43G vertically, even with suits. They can handle sustained bursts at 9G vertically but 43G would kill them unless it was horizontal. www.gforces.net...

Thanks for showing a source proving you are wrong.

A typical person can bear about 5 g (49m/s²) before G-LOC. But the combination of special g-suits and efforts to strain muscles work together to force blood back into the brain. Today, modern pilots can handle 9 g (88 m/s²) sustained.

No one is talking SUSTAINED 43g .. we are talking a short burst. If a vehicle accelerated very quickly and stopped accelerating the g forces do not continue.

So as I said, people can live through SHORT BURSTS of 50g. 43g is no problem. Although the whole 43g issue is laughable anyways .. there was no craft.

originally posted by: ben555
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
"I can't prove Aliens are not heating my food when I put it in the microwave ... but I also can't prove they aren't. But I am pretty sure which explanation makes the most sense."
stupid and immature argument
why are you the one who decides what evidence is acceptable for someone to believe in e.ts?

this post was about shared and what evidence convinces HIM of e.ts.

not what has to convince OCCAMSRAZOR. grow up and look up trolling. it sickens me when people think they are intellectual or calll themselves a genius think that they are superior on a forum. i cant stand bullies in real life,never mind some cyber bully's. just because you are not physically bullying does not mean you are not one.

go look up trolling

You clearly are unable to have a logical discussion. If you ever address anything I said in a mature, logical fashion, we can continue. I will not hold my breath.

a reply to: ben555
So your only point is to come into a discussion and insult people? So your major points are that I said I enjoyed my stupid comments which makes me a troll and Im a self declared genius which bothers you. Is there anything else you want to add that's on topic? anything?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

my 1st post was about trolling and i made my points and provided evidence of trolling. if you choose not to see it it is your problem,i hope other forum members see you for what you are.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

"Honestly. Do you have any other points? Or any point?"

no. i came as other members were being bullied by people that should know better .

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

"So your only point is to come into a discussion and insult people? So your major points are that I said I enjoyed my stupid comments which makes me a troll and Im a self declared genius which bothers you. Is there anything else you want to add that's on topic? anything?"

lol "anything"
what are you the forum owner? is this your topic? do i need your permission to be here.

i have a problem when someone calls themselves a genius,, them make up someones beliefs and themselves need to be proved right on a theory that cant be proved 100%.

i do need to go to a forum and go on a thread to explain why santa claus is not real,then argue with people,be-little them and make sarcastic comments.
there is a word for that. can you guess what it is????

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

"You clearly are unable to have a logical discussion. If you ever address anything I said in a mature, logical fashion, we can continue. I will not hold my breath."

how am i not able to have a logical discussion? i made my comment then replied to all the reply's to that post using evidence. seems logical to me. what is your idea of a logical discussion?

i posted about bullys,
im sorry you can not see what you are.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I provided 2 separate replies with 2 separate sources, yes the second one says sustained at 9G, funny how it never mentions anything about short bursts at 43G for vertical, only horizontal. I also knew you would use that excuse because it had the word sustained in it. Then we come to the "short burst" definition, well if only for a few seconds it would be enough to kill a human, quite easily. For a millisecond they should be fine. I will make one last comment on it, show me any source that says a human can handle 43G's vertically and I will believe you, otherwise admit defeat.

Edit: here is a report on the G-force experience by astronauts on a space launch, the maximum they reach is 3G vertical, and they also say that more than 9G's causes blackouts, yes sustained, but even short bursts of a few seconds is insane. If you don't believe me that's fine but I've provided 3 different sources, now you provide one to prove your theory www.spaceanswers.com...

originally posted by: Sharted
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I provided 2 separate replies with 2 separate sources, yes the second one says sustained at 9G, funny how it never mentions anything about short bursts at 43G for vertical, only horizontal. I also knew you would use that excuse because it had the word sustained in it. Then we come to the "short burst" definition, well if only for a few seconds it would be enough to kill a human, quite easily. For a millisecond they should be fine. I will make one last comment on it, show me any source that says a human can handle 43G's vertically and I will believe you, otherwise admit defeat.

Isn't it your job to prove your point? Hilarious.

Military experiments in the 1940s and 1950s with a "human decelerator," essentially a rocket sled that zipped back and forth across Edwards Air Force base in California, suggest we can slow down at a rate of 45 Gs, or the equivalent of the gravity of 45 Earths, and still live to talk about it. At that rate, you slow from 630 miles per hour to 0 mph in fractions of a second over a few hundred feet.

www.livescience.com...

NHTSA (U.S. National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration) about crash test results for humans. Data from their Biomechanics and Trauma Division research.

The NHTSA standard for a sudden impact acceleration on a human that would cause severe injury or death is 75 g's
for a "50th percentile male", 65 g's for a "50th percentile female", and 50 g's for a "50th percentile child". These figures assume the human is taking the impact on the chest/stomach, the back, sides or the head.

John Strapp-46.2 G, but think about it why were they trying to work out what would happen to a human at those levels of G-forces in 1947?????

mmmmm maybe it was in regards to this.....

1947 Roswell UFO Incident. 1947 Roswell UFO Incident. The Crash Near Roswell. An unidentified flying object crashed on a ranch northwest of Roswell, New Mexico, sometime during the first week of July 1947.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Again that's horizontal G force, not vertical. The reason there are no sources with data for vertical G at that velocity is because nobody is stupid enough to attempt it. Are you incapable of admitting you're wrong? If so I'm done talking with you. You're the one that started the argument and you provided no facts to said argument from the offset. I can tell now you're just one of those types who could argue for hours with a brick wall.

a reply to: Sharted



NASA and military researchers have made strides in answering that question for the purposes of safe spacecraft and aircraft design. (You don't want astronauts blacking out during liftoff.) Lateral acceleration — jerking to the side — does a number on our insides because of the asymmetry of the forces. According to a recent article in Popular Science, 14 Gs of lateral acceleration can tear your organs loose from one another. Head-to-foot motion, meanwhile, plunges all the blood to the feet. Between 4 and 8 longitudinal Gs will knock you out. (A force of 1 G is the normal force of gravity we feel here on terra firma, while 14 Gs equals the pull of a planet 14 times as massive.)

originally posted by: subtopia
John Strapp-46.2 G, but think about it why were they trying to work out what would happen to a human at those levels of G-forces in 1947?????

mmmmm maybe it was in regards to this.....

1947 Roswell UFO Incident. 1947 Roswell UFO Incident. The Crash Near Roswell. An unidentified flying object crashed on a ranch northwest of Roswell, New Mexico, sometime during the first week of July 1947.

That's horizontal G force, not vertical. There is a massive difference between the two.

a reply to: ben555
sharted, is this what you are looking for? i got it from link above (live science)

originally posted by: ben555
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

"You clearly are unable to have a logical discussion. If you ever address anything I said in a mature, logical fashion, we can continue. I will not hold my breath."

how am i not able to have a logical discussion? i made my comment then replied to all the reply's to that post using evidence. seems logical to me. what is your idea of a logical discussion?

i posted about bullys,
im sorry you can not see what you are.

Occams, and so many others all across the nation appear to feel that a logical discussion is an event where no one uses any intuition, power of deduction, or even imagination, and especially speculation to draw a conclusion of something that is seen or heard, and often reported on, but not understood or explained by our politically controlled system of main stream science and college institutions that are members and cooperate with the agenda and mandates of the status quo.

In other words, if academia in America has not signed off on something , often reported, and often seen, then it has no value, is false and doesn't exist.

What those who do this to try and convince everyone it hasn't happened do not realize, is that many of those who already know things outside this politically controlled, fenced in academic establishment, don't care and have cultivated their personal knowledge base without allowing it to be filtered by any of those agencies or establishment type gatekeepers of information, and so it has surpassed them and no longer needs to be approved by anyone.

But they will continue to rant and rave against any of that being factual, and they do so without even realizing that all of the effort to "make people believe" their view is wasted effort because those who already know what they know regardless, and don't even care what public opinion is about the things they already know. If public consensus is in agreement about a fact. does that make it more true? They sure think it does. and if consensus says something is false, then they push that out as false for all of humanity, even if it isn't false, because they feel they have the power of public opinion and the establishment to make it false. Just like the Vatican does to control information.

The debunkers think that if the public view is maintained as conforming and agreeing with what the status quo establishment says is true, then that gives them the authority and the reasoning to attack and ridicule anything outside of it as false and pseudo scientific rubbish.

In the main stream media, it can be observed that certain scientific knowledge will keep on being spoken about by dis info agents within academia, by using outdated and obsolete paradigms and knowledge or theory that is today obsolete because of new discoveries, and they do this in apparent ignorance that there are people hearing them on TV or whatever media, who are laughing at these talking heads for being so dumbed down, but speaking as if they know all the states of every art, on national television.

originally posted by: ben555
a reply to: ben555
sharted, is this what you are looking for? i got it from link above (live science)

The livescience link again only mentions horizontal G force, not vertical, which is completely different....

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

thanks,yes i think people that need to convince other people no matter what even when they say they can not be 100% sure themselves are as big as a problem as the hoaxers and liars in ufology.