Is there an organized effort to undermine the Aliens and UFOs forum?

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Paperjacket
a reply to: Tangerine

I knew the discussion would lead to this scenario

Suppose you had a weird dream last night and you decide to share the dream with your friends. You tell them your dream and that is all you can do in fact because it is very personal and of course with no witness. Do your friends ask you for "testable evidence"? No, they won't because the dream itself is untestable. They may believe your dream or call you a liar. If they call you a liar, what would you do? If you don't care, you may say Ok! believe it or not! If you are so determined to make your friends believe what you have dreamed about, you may say OK! I would rather go polygraph. Now things have changed. You don't prove your dream is true because it is untestable, instead you want to prove that you did not lie to your friends. By doing so, they may believe your dream.

It is quite similar when someone claims that he was abducted. What he can do the most is go polygraph if he is so determined to persuade us. However it is you who should find eveidence to prove that he was not abducted but just a kind of illusion. When you use the term "testable evidence" in this scenario it is simply wrong.

You seem to be a bit confused about how this works. The onus is on the one making the positive claim (ie. I was abducted by aliens) to prove his/her claim of fact. It is not the job of someone questioning the claim to disprove it. In fact, it is impossible to prove a negative. A polygraph test would only demonstrate whether the person believed s/he was telling the truth not whether it was the actual truth. I did notice that you didn't offer any testable evidence, whatsoever, to prove that ETs exist, have visited earth and have abducted people. Shall we assume that you are not going to make that claim of fact?

It seems that you don't understand what I was saying at all. In order to set up mutual understanding of what we are talking about so that we can communicate, please answer my following question: Do you dream?

BTW, as far as the existence of extraterrestrials is concerned, not only do I believe there are the ETs visiting our planet, but I have some theories/hypothesis on that such as :www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes, I dream. Now my question to you is whether you can cite testable evidence proving that ETs have visited earth (unless you're stating it as a belief and not a claim of fact)?

Very well but I am sorry you can't claim that you dream because you can't provide any "testable evidence". Please show me "testable evidence" to prove that you do dream.

As to your question, I do believe that ETs have visited the earth. Then I am going to make some statements in detail:

1. Till now no authority has claimed and showed any evidence of ETs and therefore it is not proved.

2. There are however some evidence of UFOs or other strange phenomenon based on which a hypothesis that ETs may have visited the earth could be built. For me the Nazca lines are such evidence that I can build a hypothesis of ETs based on it.

3. There are some people believe that ETs have visited the earth even though they do not have any evidence or hypothesis just like religion believers. Since it is their free will and I don't see why I should argue that.

Sleep studies utilizing electrodes hooked up to monitoring equipment proved that I dream.

A hypothesis isn't proof of anything except that you have a hypothesis. As always, you're welcome to believe anything.

Sleep studies/researches on dreams do not come to the conclusion that you dream, instead that you dream is the precondition. And of course you can not give me any reference to support your claim. Therefore if I follow your logic, you just can't claim that you dream. Weird, isn't it? Do you know why? It is because that not everything can be proved in this world such as feelings or very personal experience with no witness. In this case, you either choose to believe or not to. You just can't ask for "testable evidence" for everything.

I listed our different perception of this world. The first is the fact, the second is the theory/reasoning, the third is the belief. What you are seeking is the fact and you do not need to PROVE a fact but describe or show it. It seems that you choose not to believe the existence of ETs if you can not find the fact. It is totally OK! But if we were limited only to the facts, we would not be called an intelligent species. A theory/hypothesis is set up to prove/provide sophisticated perception of the world in a reasonable way. Therefore you are wrong and theories are exactly used to PROVE something.

My conclusion is:

1. Do not ask for the facts (in your term "testable evidence") of ETs again since till now there is no such fact.
2. You are welcomed to challenge any hypothesis/theory concerned with ETs.
3. You can choose to believe ETs or not to.

You still do not understand the difference between hypothesis and theory. Oh well.

You have no testable evidence proving that extraterrestrials exist, have visited earth and abducted people. All your talk doesn't change that. I suspect that you will continue to talk absent any evidence.

a reply to: Tangerine

You are blurring the line between evidence and proof. Evidence is simply a collection of things, traces, witness accounts, photographs etc. Evidence is neutral, it can be used to support conflicting theories. It is simply a body of information that is to be assessed. There is an abundance of evidence related to ufos. How that evidence is interpreted is another thing. Personally I think that when the evidence is intelligently assessed it supports the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis.

There are some people who were strong 'believers' of the possibility of non-terrestrials and the possibility that aerial phenomenon were piloted craft.

Now, we know better. There's an extremely strong chance that anything you see, most of the 'old tales' were either hoaxes, psy-ops, misidentifications or delusions. There is now a capability to hoax seamlessly an ET-UFO event, using technology, lasers, holograms and existing craft (ultra-lights, for example).

Thus, there's not much left to study, to report on, to research. The three-letter agency has just admitted that what we thought we saw in the past years was a deliberate attempt to use them to disguise their projects.

Finally, we know that it's very unlikely that any non-terrestrial entities would be even capable of finding us, coming here, visiting in person - that's just not the way it's done. Even if there were authentic events, they're drown out by the hoaxers.

a reply to: EnPassant

Personally I think that when the evidence is intelligently assessed it supports the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis.

So when its assessed in an unintelligent manner, that's the only time the ETH is not supported? So I guess we can safely discard any analysis of the "evidence" that doesn't support the ETH because that was done in an unintelligent manner. So anyone that rejects the ETH is a dumb-dumb and should probably be ignored.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant

Personally I think that when the evidence is intelligently assessed it supports the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis.

So when its assessed in an unintelligent manner, that's the only time the ETH is not supported? So I guess we can safely discard any analysis of the "evidence" that doesn't support the ETH because that was done in an unintelligent manner. So anyone that rejects the ETH is a dumb-dumb and should probably be ignored.

Well, not someone with that avatar.

Harte

God could show up in an UFO and there would be a ton of skeptics saying it was nothing more than a hoax lolz. . . .

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

God could show up in an UFO

I saw God once. Not sure why he would need to fly in something unidentified. That's silly. When God shows up, he just shows up and does miracles or smites people.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

It's all a load of crap.

I have documentary evidence of how God shows up:



Harte

a reply to: Harte

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Paperjacket
a reply to: Tangerine

I knew the discussion would lead to this scenario

Suppose you had a weird dream last night and you decide to share the dream with your friends. You tell them your dream and that is all you can do in fact because it is very personal and of course with no witness. Do your friends ask you for "testable evidence"? No, they won't because the dream itself is untestable. They may believe your dream or call you a liar. If they call you a liar, what would you do? If you don't care, you may say Ok! believe it or not! If you are so determined to make your friends believe what you have dreamed about, you may say OK! I would rather go polygraph. Now things have changed. You don't prove your dream is true because it is untestable, instead you want to prove that you did not lie to your friends. By doing so, they may believe your dream.

It is quite similar when someone claims that he was abducted. What he can do the most is go polygraph if he is so determined to persuade us. However it is you who should find eveidence to prove that he was not abducted but just a kind of illusion. When you use the term "testable evidence" in this scenario it is simply wrong.

You seem to be a bit confused about how this works. The onus is on the one making the positive claim (ie. I was abducted by aliens) to prove his/her claim of fact. It is not the job of someone questioning the claim to disprove it. In fact, it is impossible to prove a negative. A polygraph test would only demonstrate whether the person believed s/he was telling the truth not whether it was the actual truth. I did notice that you didn't offer any testable evidence, whatsoever, to prove that ETs exist, have visited earth and have abducted people. Shall we assume that you are not going to make that claim of fact?

It seems that you don't understand what I was saying at all. In order to set up mutual understanding of what we are talking about so that we can communicate, please answer my following question: Do you dream?

BTW, as far as the existence of extraterrestrials is concerned, not only do I believe there are the ETs visiting our planet, but I have some theories/hypothesis on that such as :www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes, I dream. Now my question to you is whether you can cite testable evidence proving that ETs have visited earth (unless you're stating it as a belief and not a claim of fact)?

Very well but I am sorry you can't claim that you dream because you can't provide any "testable evidence". Please show me "testable evidence" to prove that you do dream.

As to your question, I do believe that ETs have visited the earth. Then I am going to make some statements in detail:

1. Till now no authority has claimed and showed any evidence of ETs and therefore it is not proved.

2. There are however some evidence of UFOs or other strange phenomenon based on which a hypothesis that ETs may have visited the earth could be built. For me the Nazca lines are such evidence that I can build a hypothesis of ETs based on it.

3. There are some people believe that ETs have visited the earth even though they do not have any evidence or hypothesis just like religion believers. Since it is their free will and I don't see why I should argue that.

Sleep studies utilizing electrodes hooked up to monitoring equipment proved that I dream.

A hypothesis isn't proof of anything except that you have a hypothesis. As always, you're welcome to believe anything.

Sleep studies/researches on dreams do not come to the conclusion that you dream, instead that you dream is the precondition. And of course you can not give me any reference to support your claim. Therefore if I follow your logic, you just can't claim that you dream. Weird, isn't it? Do you know why? It is because that not everything can be proved in this world such as feelings or very personal experience with no witness. In this case, you either choose to believe or not to. You just can't ask for "testable evidence" for everything.

I listed our different perception of this world. The first is the fact, the second is the theory/reasoning, the third is the belief. What you are seeking is the fact and you do not need to PROVE a fact but describe or show it. It seems that you choose not to believe the existence of ETs if you can not find the fact. It is totally OK! But if we were limited only to the facts, we would not be called an intelligent species. A theory/hypothesis is set up to prove/provide sophisticated perception of the world in a reasonable way. Therefore you are wrong and theories are exactly used to PROVE something.

My conclusion is:

1. Do not ask for the facts (in your term "testable evidence") of ETs again since till now there is no such fact.
2. You are welcomed to challenge any hypothesis/theory concerned with ETs.
3. You can choose to believe ETs or not to.

You still do not understand the difference between hypothesis and theory. Oh well.

You have no testable evidence proving that extraterrestrials exist, have visited earth and abducted people. All your talk doesn't change that. I suspect that you will continue to talk absent any evidence.

You still have no idea what I said and I am not going to make any further effort since you just don't get it. As I have replied twice, if you want evidence, I think the Nazca lines are evidence that may prove that extraterrestrials visited the earth and I also establish a hypothesis and you are welcomed to challenge my analysis . The link is here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Paperjacket
a reply to: Tangerine

I knew the discussion would lead to this scenario

Suppose you had a weird dream last night and you decide to share the dream with your friends. You tell them your dream and that is all you can do in fact because it is very personal and of course with no witness. Do your friends ask you for "testable evidence"? No, they won't because the dream itself is untestable. They may believe your dream or call you a liar. If they call you a liar, what would you do? If you don't care, you may say Ok! believe it or not! If you are so determined to make your friends believe what you have dreamed about, you may say OK! I would rather go polygraph. Now things have changed. You don't prove your dream is true because it is untestable, instead you want to prove that you did not lie to your friends. By doing so, they may believe your dream.

It is quite similar when someone claims that he was abducted. What he can do the most is go polygraph if he is so determined to persuade us. However it is you who should find eveidence to prove that he was not abducted but just a kind of illusion. When you use the term "testable evidence" in this scenario it is simply wrong.

You seem to be a bit confused about how this works. The onus is on the one making the positive claim (ie. I was abducted by aliens) to prove his/her claim of fact. It is not the job of someone questioning the claim to disprove it. In fact, it is impossible to prove a negative. A polygraph test would only demonstrate whether the person believed s/he was telling the truth not whether it was the actual truth. I did notice that you didn't offer any testable evidence, whatsoever, to prove that ETs exist, have visited earth and have abducted people. Shall we assume that you are not going to make that claim of fact?

It seems that you don't understand what I was saying at all. In order to set up mutual understanding of what we are talking about so that we can communicate, please answer my following question: Do you dream?

BTW, as far as the existence of extraterrestrials is concerned, not only do I believe there are the ETs visiting our planet, but I have some theories/hypothesis on that such as :www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes, I dream. Now my question to you is whether you can cite testable evidence proving that ETs have visited earth (unless you're stating it as a belief and not a claim of fact)?

Very well but I am sorry you can't claim that you dream because you can't provide any "testable evidence". Please show me "testable evidence" to prove that you do dream.

As to your question, I do believe that ETs have visited the earth. Then I am going to make some statements in detail:

1. Till now no authority has claimed and showed any evidence of ETs and therefore it is not proved.

2. There are however some evidence of UFOs or other strange phenomenon based on which a hypothesis that ETs may have visited the earth could be built. For me the Nazca lines are such evidence that I can build a hypothesis of ETs based on it.

3. There are some people believe that ETs have visited the earth even though they do not have any evidence or hypothesis just like religion believers. Since it is their free will and I don't see why I should argue that.

Sleep studies utilizing electrodes hooked up to monitoring equipment proved that I dream.

A hypothesis isn't proof of anything except that you have a hypothesis. As always, you're welcome to believe anything.

Sleep studies/researches on dreams do not come to the conclusion that you dream, instead that you dream is the precondition. And of course you can not give me any reference to support your claim. Therefore if I follow your logic, you just can't claim that you dream. Weird, isn't it? Do you know why? It is because that not everything can be proved in this world such as feelings or very personal experience with no witness. In this case, you either choose to believe or not to. You just can't ask for "testable evidence" for everything.

I listed our different perception of this world. The first is the fact, the second is the theory/reasoning, the third is the belief. What you are seeking is the fact and you do not need to PROVE a fact but describe or show it. It seems that you choose not to believe the existence of ETs if you can not find the fact. It is totally OK! But if we were limited only to the facts, we would not be called an intelligent species. A theory/hypothesis is set up to prove/provide sophisticated perception of the world in a reasonable way. Therefore you are wrong and theories are exactly used to PROVE something.

My conclusion is:

1. Do not ask for the facts (in your term "testable evidence") of ETs again since till now there is no such fact.
2. You are welcomed to challenge any hypothesis/theory concerned with ETs.
3. You can choose to believe ETs or not to.

You still do not understand the difference between hypothesis and theory. Oh well.

You have no testable evidence proving that extraterrestrials exist, have visited earth and abducted people. All your talk doesn't change that. I suspect that you will continue to talk absent any evidence.

You still have no idea what I said and I am not going to make any further effort since you just don't get it. As I have replied twice, if you want evidence, I think the Nazca lines are evidence that may prove that extraterrestrials visited the earth and I also establish a hypothesis and you are welcomed to challenge my analysis . The link is here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Nazca lines are evidence that the Nazca lines exist. They are not remotely testable evidence that extraterrestrials exist or have visited earth. Your demonstrated inability to distinguish that which constitutes testable evidence makes the prospect of reading your link not worth the effort. If you had any evidence, you would have cited it in this thread and you haven't.

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: Tangerine

You are blurring the line between evidence and proof. Evidence is simply a collection of things, traces, witness accounts, photographs etc. Evidence is neutral, it can be used to support conflicting theories. It is simply a body of information that is to be assessed. There is an abundance of evidence related to ufos. How that evidence is interpreted is another thing. Personally I think that when the evidence is intelligently assessed it supports the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis.

I have repeatedly mentioned testable evidence. Testable. When you have TESTABLE evidence PROVING that extraterrestrials exist, have visited earth and abducted people, please post it in this thread. I will gladly look at it.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Paperjacket
a reply to: Tangerine

I knew the discussion would lead to this scenario

Suppose you had a weird dream last night and you decide to share the dream with your friends. You tell them your dream and that is all you can do in fact because it is very personal and of course with no witness. Do your friends ask you for "testable evidence"? No, they won't because the dream itself is untestable. They may believe your dream or call you a liar. If they call you a liar, what would you do? If you don't care, you may say Ok! believe it or not! If you are so determined to make your friends believe what you have dreamed about, you may say OK! I would rather go polygraph. Now things have changed. You don't prove your dream is true because it is untestable, instead you want to prove that you did not lie to your friends. By doing so, they may believe your dream.

It is quite similar when someone claims that he was abducted. What he can do the most is go polygraph if he is so determined to persuade us. However it is you who should find eveidence to prove that he was not abducted but just a kind of illusion. When you use the term "testable evidence" in this scenario it is simply wrong.

You seem to be a bit confused about how this works. The onus is on the one making the positive claim (ie. I was abducted by aliens) to prove his/her claim of fact. It is not the job of someone questioning the claim to disprove it. In fact, it is impossible to prove a negative. A polygraph test would only demonstrate whether the person believed s/he was telling the truth not whether it was the actual truth. I did notice that you didn't offer any testable evidence, whatsoever, to prove that ETs exist, have visited earth and have abducted people. Shall we assume that you are not going to make that claim of fact?

It seems that you don't understand what I was saying at all. In order to set up mutual understanding of what we are talking about so that we can communicate, please answer my following question: Do you dream?

BTW, as far as the existence of extraterrestrials is concerned, not only do I believe there are the ETs visiting our planet, but I have some theories/hypothesis on that such as :www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes, I dream. Now my question to you is whether you can cite testable evidence proving that ETs have visited earth (unless you're stating it as a belief and not a claim of fact)?

Very well but I am sorry you can't claim that you dream because you can't provide any "testable evidence". Please show me "testable evidence" to prove that you do dream.

As to your question, I do believe that ETs have visited the earth. Then I am going to make some statements in detail:

1. Till now no authority has claimed and showed any evidence of ETs and therefore it is not proved.

2. There are however some evidence of UFOs or other strange phenomenon based on which a hypothesis that ETs may have visited the earth could be built. For me the Nazca lines are such evidence that I can build a hypothesis of ETs based on it.

3. There are some people believe that ETs have visited the earth even though they do not have any evidence or hypothesis just like religion believers. Since it is their free will and I don't see why I should argue that.

Sleep studies utilizing electrodes hooked up to monitoring equipment proved that I dream.

A hypothesis isn't proof of anything except that you have a hypothesis. As always, you're welcome to believe anything.

Sleep studies/researches on dreams do not come to the conclusion that you dream, instead that you dream is the precondition. And of course you can not give me any reference to support your claim. Therefore if I follow your logic, you just can't claim that you dream. Weird, isn't it? Do you know why? It is because that not everything can be proved in this world such as feelings or very personal experience with no witness. In this case, you either choose to believe or not to. You just can't ask for "testable evidence" for everything.

I listed our different perception of this world. The first is the fact, the second is the theory/reasoning, the third is the belief. What you are seeking is the fact and you do not need to PROVE a fact but describe or show it. It seems that you choose not to believe the existence of ETs if you can not find the fact. It is totally OK! But if we were limited only to the facts, we would not be called an intelligent species. A theory/hypothesis is set up to prove/provide sophisticated perception of the world in a reasonable way. Therefore you are wrong and theories are exactly used to PROVE something.

My conclusion is:

1. Do not ask for the facts (in your term "testable evidence") of ETs again since till now there is no such fact.
2. You are welcomed to challenge any hypothesis/theory concerned with ETs.
3. You can choose to believe ETs or not to.

You still do not understand the difference between hypothesis and theory. Oh well.

You have no testable evidence proving that extraterrestrials exist, have visited earth and abducted people. All your talk doesn't change that. I suspect that you will continue to talk absent any evidence.

You still have no idea what I said and I am not going to make any further effort since you just don't get it. As I have replied twice, if you want evidence, I think the Nazca lines are evidence that may prove that extraterrestrials visited the earth and I also establish a hypothesis and you are welcomed to challenge my analysis . The link is here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Nazca lines are evidence that the Nazca lines exist. They are not remotely testable evidence that extraterrestrials exist or have visited earth. Your demonstrated inability to distinguish that which constitutes testable evidence makes the prospect of reading your link not worth the effort. If you had any evidence, you would have cited it in this thread and you haven't.

You are not worth of my time AT ALL.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: Tangerine

You are blurring the line between evidence and proof. Evidence is simply a collection of things, traces, witness accounts, photographs etc. Evidence is neutral, it can be used to support conflicting theories. It is simply a body of information that is to be assessed. There is an abundance of evidence related to ufos. How that evidence is interpreted is another thing. Personally I think that when the evidence is intelligently assessed it supports the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis.

I have repeatedly mentioned testable evidence. Testable. When you have TESTABLE evidence PROVING that extraterrestrials exist, have visited earth and abducted people, please post it in this thread. I will gladly look at it.

You have repeatedly mentioned NONSENSE. Either your poor intelligence prevents you from understanding what we are talking about or you are just tooooo paranoid for NORMAL communication.

a reply to: Tangerine

Testable evidence is not possible here unless it's an image. Even then it's rarely assured we come to the perfect conclusion.

This'll s a discussion board designed to bring the discussion of evidence to the largest global population of interested people.

Demanding testable evidence here is like demanding a cure for cancer from your bridge club. Not going to happen but it doesn't make the game any less fun or less of a learning experience.

If you're stuck on testable physical evidence I suggest you go round up lots of cash and see what you can bribe certain folk into parting with. 😉

originally posted by: Springer
a reply to: Tangerine

Testable evidence is not possible here unless it's an image. Even then it's rarely assured we come to the perfect conclusion.

This'll s a discussion board designed to bring the discussion of evidence to the largest global population of interested people.

Demanding testable evidence here is like demanding a cure for cancer from your bridge club. Not going to happen but it doesn't make the game any less fun or less of a learning experience.

If you're stuck on testable physical evidence I suggest you go round up lots of cash and see what you can bribe certain folk into parting with. 😉

It is entirely possible to present the results of scientific testing in this forum. But you can't discuss evidence that doesn't exist. Instead, many people want to pass off beliefs as evidence and become angry when it's not accepted as evidence.

What I am stuck on is not joining the Church of ET and kneeling and nodding when the ET proselytizers make claims of fact they can not support. I have no problem when people present their beliefs as beliefs but I do and will continue to make a distinction between beliefs and facts.

Which people would you suggest I bribe and into parting with what?

I believe that a large number of people have had anomalous experiences. The nature of those experiences needs to be explored. By limiting the possibilities to extraterrestrials, a hypothesis that has produced no fruit, we avoid considering other possibilities. Don't we owe it to the people who have had these anomalous experiences to think outside of the ET box? How many times do we have to run into a brick wall before we decide to take another path?

originally posted by: Tangerine
I believe that a large number of people have had anomalous experiences. The nature of those experiences needs to be explored. By limiting the possibilities to extraterrestrials, a hypothesis that has produced no fruit, we avoid considering other possibilities. Don't we owe it to the people who have had these anomalous experiences to think outside of the ET box? How many times do we have to run into a brick wall before we decide to take another path?

Yes, and that is the epitome of an "open mind". We all have our pet theories and biases and that is great. ET is elusive. They are able to be physically here without leaving much of a trace and any trace they do leave is somehow inconclusive that they actually left it. But there seems to be a whole lot of inconclusive evidence. And by inconclusive, I mean ambiguous. So what do you get when you analyze a pile of ambiguous evidence? You get whatever you want to see.

physical beings flying around in physical space ships interacting physically with people will leave physical evidence. The rationalization of why there is no physical evidence is also telling. The MIB, advanced alien tech, government cover up and my favorite, I am a paid disinfo agent working the forums upsetting people and getting them banned! Somehow I was integrated into the reason there is no physical evidence because I pointed that fact out!

So what precludes this from being a purely psychological phenomenon? Absolutely nothing. Is that what it is? I have no idea.

a reply to: Paperjacket

if you want evidence, I think the Nazca lines are evidence that may prove that extraterrestrials visited the earth and I also establish a hypothesis and you are welcomed to challenge my analysis .

Bravo you think its evidence.

It was an enjoyable read but what you think is evidence of ET might be thought of as evidence for something else by many others.


Hey but thinking is good, keep it up

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Paperjacket

if you want evidence, I think the Nazca lines are evidence that may prove that extraterrestrials visited the earth and I also establish a hypothesis and you are welcomed to challenge my analysis .

Bravo you think its evidence.

It was an enjoyable read but what you think is evidence of ET might be thought of as evidence for something else by many others.


Hey but thinking is good, keep it up

Yes of course. Half glass of water can be described as either half full or half empty. In fact I welcome any hypothesis as long as it is reasonable.