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

a reply to: Sharted

ok. what is the force when an object could zig zag at high speed? (say object zooms in one direction than does 45 degree turn and zoom off again. if that makes sense?)

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed


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...............

Science is the best thing we have to explain and understand how our universe works. There is nothing wrong with using intuition, (surely deduction is a logical process???), and the best scientists need vivid imaginations. There COULD be alien spacecraft visiting earth and there MAY be aliens amongst us.

I'll say again that Sharted put a lot of effort into the post and it was well written but the evidence was unconvincing. If anyone is convinced that the evidence posted points to aliens being here on earth then that's fine. But it doesn't make it a fact.

I am not even saying the hypothesis itself is necessarily false.


However the OP says

How can anyone not believe that aliens are visiting us given the above data?

The data given is not data that convinces me aliens are visiting us for reasons that have all been explained in the thread previously.

Now I happen to 'believe' that there are other intelligent beings somewhere out there. But I don't 'believe' there is an alien presence here on earth based on the cases presented.

If someone can present something else more convincing then my opinion may well change. There are case files with physical evidence, photos, video and multiple witnesses. But none of them I've seen so far have convinced me there are alien beings here on Earth.

American Academia is not something I pay an awful lot of attention to by the way.

originally posted by: ben555
a reply to: Sharted

ok. what is the force when an object could zig zag at high speed? (say object zooms in one direction than does 45 degree turn and zoom off again. if that makes sense?)

Imagine being on a roller coaster traveling at 500 meters per second.

You need to use your intuition for where to look, then approach at the place where your intuition has guided you, and use science there. The problem of modern science and why it acts a lot like religion is that it is unwilling to try some new fields and question things it has already explained. not open minded to review discoveries that could be a lot different than so far is known about,

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
I am afraid that my personal interest in this topic, the studying and reading MANY books and viewing forums like this has NOT exactly strengthened the evidence, in fact I became a lot more skeptical.

The phenomenon is as elusive as it always was and the evidence is lackluster, at best.

A lot here, in my opinion, has to do with human psychology and the subjective way how EVERYONE is perceiving reality. (Ask several people who witness an accident and you will get different things reported as what happened).

YES there are intriguing cases where pilots etc. saw something...but as a whole...there is just not a lot to go by. When a phenomenon KEEPS elusive for decades, millennia even...it's justified to ask whether the phenomenon itself does even exist, imho.

Elusive, indeed. But what lasting physical evidence could you expect from a flying saucer swoshing by? The sheer amount of written accounts from people in all walks of life is the evidence. Since I personally do not have any first hand experience I wouldn't clame to be in the know. I'm just a beleiver - "I want to beleive".. (Well maybe I saw one but probably an airplane. But it popped out of the sky in the flash of an eye..)
"Where shall I put the truckload?" - A.J. Hynek (the late former sceptic)

originally posted by: Sharted

originally posted by: ben555
a reply to: Sharted

ok. what is the force when an object could zig zag at high speed? (say object zooms in one direction than does 45 degree turn and zoom off again. if that makes sense?)

Imagine being on a roller coaster traveling at 500 meters per second.

Everybody knows that the UFO's create their own gravitational field. This nullifies the inertial forces arising from zig-zaging in our frame of reference. If they have windows it will feel like watching a movie of earths landscape rolling by.
Don't beleive me??
Please refer to this book: "Solving The UFO Enigma: How Modern Physics is Revealing the Technology of UFOs"
by Robert Louis Schroeder (Author)

www.amazon.com...

a reply to: chuckmorris

Elusive, indeed. But what lasting physical evidence could you expect from a flying saucer swoshing by?

That's the issues here. The phenomenon is elusive, fleeting and non quantifiable. So what is the difference between a flying saucer swoshing by and any number of explanations that can account for someone perceiving a swoshing object?

The sheer amount of written accounts from people in all walks of life is the evidence.

That's only evidence of people "seeing" something that is elusive that can also be explained in a number of ways that don't involve aliens.

a reply to: ben555

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

No, I am just curious if you want to discuss any "on topic" posts I made. I already know my on line persona is fascinating to you for some reason. That's all. So, yes, anything besides me that you want discuss?

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%.

Obviously you don't get the "Super Genius" reference. Like I said, you have been too busy calling people names so I have no idea what your beliefs are. My apologies for assuming you disagreed with the actual content of my postings.

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.

I think you mean "do not" but apparently you come into threads just to insult people and discuss their profile titles and not the topic of the thread or relevant posts.

there is a word for that. can you guess what it is????

Again, do you have anything else you want to discuss that's not about some dumb thing I said over 2 weeks ago or my Cartoon References on my profile? perhaps something related to the actual content of what I posted or something that's on topic? anything? If not, there really is no need to reply.

a reply to: chuckmorris

CHUCK
there is also hyneks understudy called TED PHILLIPS. he only does landing sites.

a reply to: LightYearsAhead
it is a bit like "the earth is flat" all those years ago.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

i made my points in my posts above. you are obsessed with me! ive never seen some many replies from someone about one post.
you have an obsession with needing people to think you a clever or correct. this is blinding you to what you are.
there is nothing wrong with making mistakes in life,it is having the balls to admit it,learn and move on.

"anything else"
yes please stop trolling me.

a reply to: Sharted

ah ok,i get what it is

originally posted by: ben555
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

i made my points in my posts above.
you are obsessed with me! ive never seen some many replies from someone about one post.
you have an obsession with needing people to think you a clever or correct. this is blinding you to what you are.
there is nothing wrong with making mistakes in life,it is having the balls to admit it,learn and move on.

"anything else"
yes please stop trolling me.

I believe you are very confused. I would say you are projecting. The very qualities that you find so objectionable in me are the very qualities you are displaying! I was merely suggesting that you take one of my many "on topic" posts and we could discuss something about the topic and not about me or my profile. Perhaps you would do well taking your own advice? Why not complain to the mods that I am asking you politely to not discuss me and to stay on topic?

originally posted by: ben555
a reply to: chuckmorris

CHUCK
there is also hyneks understudy called TED PHILLIPS. he only does landing sites.

I came across this article a while back regarding Phillips' work. There really doesn't seem to be a way to distinguish a "trace landing" case from a "crop circle" among other problems.
www.project1947.com...

Ted Phillips was born in 1942 and has lived all his life in Missouri. He is still alive today and his career in UFO research stretched from the late 1960s to the mid 1980s. Phillips had a varied career and at various times was an inspector for the Missouri State Highway Department, a professional photographer and also an amateur jazz musician. According to Ronald Story's UFO Encyclopedia Phillips investigated more than five hundred UFO cases in his first twelve years of UFO research. His position statement (written in the mid 1970s) concluded "I believe, after thirteen years of investigation, [that] the data indicates a non-terrestrial origin."

This summary is based on only a partial listing of the catalogue as many of Phillips' cases appear extremely dubious in nature. Cases from the early 1950s are particularly unreliable because many of the early UFO books were written by people who automatically assumed that they were describing encounters with alien spaceships. Jenny Randles tells me that cases reported in the "hysterical" Spanish and South American media should be treated even more skeptically because these cases were often complete fabrications! Furthermore many of the early cases have no proper source, e.g. Phillips quotes Vallee describing cases which appear to have been anecdotally reported to Vallee. This means that we often have no idea whether or not a specific case was investigated by anyone, let alone whether it was a contemporary investigation or whether the investigator was in any sense someone capable of undertaking an objective scientific evaluation.

In addition to these problems we have a major definitional problem concerning cases which feature circular ground traces because of the current confusion which exists over the authenticity of the archetypal crop circle. Doug and Dave claimed to have actually created the phenomenon of a sharply-defined swirled circle, but they apparently based their hoax on the Tully reeds circles, which themselves were sharply-defined swirled circles. Given this regrettable fact, what do we include in our definition of a crop circle? Do we include roughly circular shapes of depressed but not swirled circles or do we stick to sharp-edged circles? How about burned circles or circles where the crop has been denuded or completely removed? Given these problems its probably wise to merely highlight all cases involving circular traces but not assume that they are necessarily caused by the same causal mechanism. It is quite possible that there may be several natural circle-forming mechanisms which all create different types of circular ground trace. One of these mechanisms could still be Meaden's postulated plasma-vortex but it is wise not to assume that any particular category of circular ground trace must be caused by the postulated plasma vortex. In any event we will be trying to track down case material referred to by Phillips and will report back in a future issue.

originally posted by: chuckmorris

originally posted by: Sharted

originally posted by: ben555
a reply to: Sharted

ok. what is the force when an object could zig zag at high speed? (say object zooms in one direction than does 45 degree turn and zoom off again. if that makes sense?)

Imagine being on a roller coaster traveling at 500 meters per second.

Everybody knows that the UFO's create their own gravitational field. This nullifies the inertial forces arising from zig-zaging in our frame of reference. If they have windows it will feel like watching a movie of earths landscape rolling by.
Don't beleive me??
Please refer to this book: "Solving The UFO Enigma: How Modern Physics is Revealing the Technology of UFOs"
by Robert Louis Schroeder (Author)

www.amazon.com...

Actually NOBODY knows this.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: ben555
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

i made my points in my posts above.
you are obsessed with me! ive never seen some many replies from someone about one post.
you have an obsession with needing people to think you a clever or correct. this is blinding you to what you are.
there is nothing wrong with making mistakes in life,it is having the balls to admit it,learn and move on.

"anything else"
yes please stop trolling me.

I believe you are very confused. I would say you are projecting. The very qualities that you find so objectionable in me are the very qualities you are displaying! I was merely suggesting that you take one of my many "on topic" posts and we could discuss something about the topic and not about me or my profile. Perhaps you would do well taking your own advice? Why not complain to the mods that I am asking you politely to not discuss me and to stay on topic?

no. i have made my point of trolling with evidence. i post because the trolling is bulling.
should no-one help if 2 people were bullying another person right in front of them in the street outside? if that person steps in to stop this real life bullys is that person a bully for stopping what has happened?

you joined in my replies with OCCAMSRAZOR because i said "im here to learn" you then posted quoting me say im here to learn then project a made up notion of my beliefs,grabbing at something about "CIA files" what??

so you had joined my conversation with another member that required no input from yourself with MADE UP information to prepare for mocking me! i caught you out and you do not like it.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: ben555
a reply to: chuckmorris

CHUCK
there is also hyneks understudy called TED PHILLIPS. he only does landing sites.

I came across this article a while back regarding Phillips' work. There really doesn't seem to be a way to distinguish a "trace landing" case from a "crop circle" among other problems.
www.project1947.com...

Ted Phillips was born in 1942 and has lived all his life in Missouri. He is still alive today and his career in UFO research stretched from the late 1960s to the mid 1980s. Phillips had a varied career and at various times was an inspector for the Missouri State Highway Department, a professional photographer and also an amateur jazz musician. According to Ronald Story's UFO Encyclopedia Phillips investigated more than five hundred UFO cases in his first twelve years of UFO research. His position statement (written in the mid 1970s) concluded "I believe, after thirteen years of investigation, [that] the data indicates a non-terrestrial origin."

This summary is based on only a partial listing of the catalogue as many of Phillips' cases appear extremely dubious in nature. Cases from the early 1950s are particularly unreliable because many of the early UFO books were written by people who automatically assumed that they were describing encounters with alien spaceships. Jenny Randles tells me that cases reported in the "hysterical" Spanish and South American media should be treated even more skeptically because these cases were often complete fabrications! Furthermore many of the early cases have no proper source, e.g. Phillips quotes Vallee describing cases which appear to have been anecdotally reported to Vallee. This means that we often have no idea whether or not a specific case was investigated by anyone, let alone whether it was a contemporary investigation or whether the investigator was in any sense someone capable of undertaking an objective scientific evaluation.

whats your point? even your source says "which appear to have been anecdotal"
everything appears or assumes. NOBODY KNOWS,dear me.
i was not bring this as proof of alien life. suggesting a member look him up as he/she may be interested.

your article brings nothing to the table,it proves nothing either way.

a reply to: ben555

sorry this was meant to be at bottom of above post(doh)

whats your point? even your source says "which appear to have been anecdotal"
everything appears or assumes. NOBODY KNOWS,dear me.
i was not bringing this as proof of alien life. suggesting a member look him up as he/she may be interested.

i think phillips is at least trying to research,im sure there many holes in his research into "ufo landings" for you to bring up.

a reply to: ben555

here is a link to ted phillips website. i just came across it when googled him.

this is not a link to another site with just another site with another persons assumtions!

www.ufoevidence.org...

a reply to: ben555Can you please stop posting nonsense about me and stay on topic? Like I said, feel free to alert the mods about any post of mine you do not like. You are not a moderator and can not bully me because you feel like it.