How much proof do you want ???

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: chuckmorris

originally posted by: LogicalRazor

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
It would certainly have to be more than a dot in the sky thats for sure.


Or some dude in a Youtube video with sketches saying he's been abducted or talks to an alien telepathically. That is not even close to real/credible proof.

Not sure about the aliens but telepathy is for real. It basically was proven in the 70's. If not - how was it possible to "sell" remote viewing to both the US and the USSR militaries?

Uh uh. If anyone can prove telepathy they can collect a cool million from the James Randi Foundation. No takers yet.




posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: chuckmorris

originally posted by: LogicalRazor

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
It would certainly have to be more than a dot in the sky thats for sure.


Or some dude in a Youtube video with sketches saying he's been abducted or talks to an alien telepathically. That is not even close to real/credible proof.

Not sure about the aliens but telepathy is for real. It basically was proven in the 70's. If not - how was it possible to "sell" remote viewing to both the US and the USSR militaries?

Uh uh. If anyone can prove telepathy they can collect a cool million from the James Randi Foundation. No takers yet.

Maybe the authors of the studies haven't applied and maybe Mr Randi haven't searched the scientific databases for proof already there. Maybe he doesn't count remote viewing as telepathy. The effect is weak but significantly better than chance. The test I have in my mind was card reading (or something to that effect) at a distance. For most test subjects, they started off better than chance but declined over time (got boared parhaps). However, people with a reputation as psychics never declined and improved over time. Results were peer reviewed and all that stuff with no obvoius flaws found. They were described, even by die hard sceptics, as "interesting".
edit on 20-7-2014 by chuckmorris because: won't tell



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Lompyt

A photo that isn't a lens flare or a reflection of a lightbulb would be a good start.

I believe in alien life — who doesn't? — but I sure as hell don't believe there's any evidence it has visited Earth.

As the quality and quantity of cameras available has increased, the quality and quantity of UFO photos seems to have dropped. There were more convincing fakes back in the 1980s.


There were convincing "fakes" of saucers back in th 1800's too. Double exposure? Maybe those photos set off the entire UFO "craze"? Ok, let's do an experiment. Snap a picture of an airliner a mile away with your cellphone. Then zoom it in an crop the picture. Compare the quality with a typical UFO pic. You see, if you wanna fake a perfect saucer there's nothing stopping you. The computing power of Jurrasic Park (1993) is within reach of everyone now. A computer game renders graphics at 60 frames per second. If you could wait a month for one frame, it'd look damn good. Of course most UFO pics are faked. But the deceivers are no more stupid than that they create the pictures in the quality you could expect.
edit on 20-7-2014 by chuckmorris because: typo again



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Miccey

originally posted by: chuckmorris

originally posted by: Miccey
What could be convincing
proof to me, would be
multiple scources of the same
situation. Scources with NO
emediate relations.
Pictures AND video.

One singel YT or pic isnt going
to be valid. EVER.. Face it.
Go back, do it right...

Have you tried pre internet books?


A book, seriously?!?
Im 44 so yea i was young when internet
was a slow dialup...Books, anyone can write
a book, doesnt matter how many you read its
the same all over...

And that answer was not really helpful.
As i stated what would be convinsing to me..


I'm sorry you cannot know anything for sure by digisting books and yt-vids. If you wanna get closer to the truth, you'll have to spend the time and money and follow some of the trails yourself. I really don't see why the topic of extraterrestrial spacecraft is so much "out there". It all comes down to physics and few think Newton or Einstein is the final word. A few months ago we heard of the gravitational waves that "proved" the universe expanded faster than the speed of light at one time (if time existed then..). So the idea of bending spacetime rather than traveling through it ("warp drive") maybe isn't that far fetched after all? The question is rather wether it would require astronomical amounts of energy or not..
No, anyone can't write books with hundreds of footnotes and name names, dates and places. This is the stuff that knowledge is made of. Could anyone just make up and put into print that Gordon Cooper saw a saucer landing in the desert and get away with it? And then fake a yt-vid of him saying it.. Don't think so.
edit on 20-7-2014 by chuckmorris because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-7-2014 by chuckmorris because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-7-2014 by chuckmorris because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 06:54 PM
link   
And to all of you: If you havent seen Out Of The Blue (by James Fox) then please do (and don't forget the popcorns). It was on youtube last time i checked.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
Uh uh. If anyone can prove telepathy they can collect a cool million from the James Randi Foundation. No takers yet.

Randi's requirements for proof almost guarantee that the prize will never be claimed. He's not interested in small statistically significant test results. He wants circus stuff. Of course that is going to be bullcrap.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Randi's requirements for proof almost guarantee that the prize will never be claimed. He's not interested in small statistically significant test results. He wants circus stuff. Of course that is going to be bullcrap.


There is a big difference between small success above average and million, billon or trillion to 1 odds to be successful without telepathy or other forms of mind powers. For me the biggest proof that ESP does not exists is that gambling is successful, for the casino that is...

As for aliens it needs to be physical evidence...we have stalled for the past 6000 years on only eye witness reports, pure speculations of drawings, fuzzy pictures and stories. As this continues without any more proof than the same old repeat, the advancement of technology is finally killing this dead horse once and for all.

At some point in all this we will actually need something alien...don't you all think?



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Lompyt

I've filmed some things I can't explain. Even the best quality footage, shot with cinema cameras & lenses- can't be distinguished from airplanes. The only reason I even keep that footage, is for the time stamp.

The 3D footage however, makes people react like I did when I first saw them. Folks start asking questions, instead of trying to pick out CGI compositing errors.

Therein lies the problem: until north American television goes 4K (all 4K TVs are 3D capable), every "Jay Sherman" out there will have to see them with their own 2 eyes.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join