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

originally posted by: Paperjacket

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.

or just a glass of water in my opinion, really couldn't care at the amount of water unless I or another is thirsty, then the amount becomes important.

as if evidence is required to prove its half full or empty a few parameters must be met, what is a standard glass, 250ml, does your half full or half empty glass of water have 125ml exactly?

The parameters pointing to the lines or evidence that the lines were created by humans via terrestrial ideas are much more solid than Mork or ZOG from Uranus coming here and making them or influencing their making.

I welcome any thoughts whether they can be classed as a hypothesis or a mad delusion all is good and entertaining its when one feels the need to defend their thoughts is when another will attack those thoughts or hypothesis.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

No, of course not. There are intelligent arguments on all sides but when the phenomenon is closely studied the ETH comes out on top. What I don't entertain is people who just say "Prove it, prove it" and then ignore the arguments and supporting evidence when it is presented to them. This is not intelligent nor is it conductive to a proper conversation.

a reply to: EnPassant

closely studied

Closely studied with what?

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.

We know there is no testable evidence that PROVES the ETH. But why do people get stuck on this issue with endless demands for proof? It is not a question of airtight scientific proof. It is a question of assessing the mountain of evidence and making a hypothesis. For me, when the evidence is assessed it is tantamount to proof. The case for ETH is supported by a great deal of evidence and it is the most convincing argument.

For example, the technology described - dating right back to the dirigibles of the late 19th century and before - could hardly have originated on earth. This facet of the phenomenon alone - dirigibles - constitutes a strong argument for ETH. And there are many other arguments. Read Timothy Good's accounts of pilots chasing ufos that can do extraordinary manoeuvres. The argument that these craft originated on earth is weaker than the ETH when all the surrounding arguments are considered. I could go on...

This is what I mean by intelligent argument. You won't get to enter into such arguments if you continually demand proof. It is more subtle than that.

originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: EnPassant

closely studied

Closely studied with what?

With intelligence.

a reply to: EnPassant

For example, the technology described - dating right back to the dirigibles of the late 19th century and before - could hardly have originated on earth.

Why would extraterrestrials use steam powered dirigibles?

originally posted by: Paperjacket

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.

But it remains water in the glass.

The idea that Aliens had something to do with artifacts like the Nazca lines substitutes otherworldly matters for purely terrestrial ones.

The fact is, the lines can be easily made with three sticks and a good set of eyes. Since, on this particular planet, both sticks and eyes are in abundance, there is no reason to bring any offworld sticks or eyes into that equation.

When you claim they are some sort of "evidence" for alien intervention (of whatever kind,) what you are saying is the equivalent of me claiming the lines are evidence of a traveling troupe of elephants trudging across the plain.

Harte

a reply to: EnPassant

The only way to arrive at ETH currently is by ignoring or misunderstanding psychological explanations.

a reply to: EnPassant

With intelligence.

Sure, but what you are really doing is reading stuff.

It has nothing to do with intelligence, and everything to do with preference.

Did you know that preference is a philosophical concept?

originally posted by: EnPassant

For example, the technology described - dating right back to the dirigibles of the late 19th century and before - could hardly have originated on earth. This facet of the phenomenon alone - dirigibles - constitutes a strong argument for ETH. And there are many other arguments.

Oh yeah?

originally posted by: EnPassant
For example, the technology described - dating right back to the dirigibles of the late 19th century and before - could hardly have originated on earth. This facet of the phenomenon alone - dirigibles - constitutes a strong argument for ETH. .

What are you saying? They flew here in dirigibles?

The airships actually make the case for a strong psychological aspect to the phenomenon. People reported seeing craft and occupants that that conformed to the contemporary technology and to the contemporary narrative of human inventors.

originally posted by: Harte

The fact is, the lines can be easily made with three sticks and a good set of eyes.

And even more easily destroyed by clueless hippies with banners.

Yeah, the Nazca Lines are a good example of preference.

Some see the lines and their preference has become to understand them as runways for alien spaceships.

I see the lines and have come to prefer to understand them as having been made by countless human feet treading them in to the terra in ritual fashion like great megalithic dirt-tattoos. They were 'walked' in to existence.

I prefer my preference.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: EnPassant

For example, the technology described - dating right back to the dirigibles of the late 19th century and before - could hardly have originated on earth.

Why would extraterrestrials use steam powered dirigibles?

They were not steam powered. These were set ups, or misperceptions. These set ups are very common. Very often aliens were 'fixing' these dirigibles. Very often a person comes across aliens whose ufo has 'broken down'. There is nothing wrong with these ufos. It is a set up. These beings are adept at putting on a show and misleading the gullible. They present their craft in ordinary terms. There is also a psychic element to encounters where the witness enters an altered state of mind and perceives things according to what he/she can comprehend. So, a person might 'understand' the ufo in familiar terms - 'steam powered' - because that is the only way he can process the information. In other words, the brain, unable to understand what is being seen, fills in the details with the brain's 'stock imagery'.

Sometimes these encounters involve an altered state of consciousness and all kinds of distortions occur. This psychic element lends credibility to the idea that these beings are physical but also exist on a spiritual dimension.

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: EnPassant
For example, the technology described - dating right back to the dirigibles of the late 19th century and before - could hardly have originated on earth. This facet of the phenomenon alone - dirigibles - constitutes a strong argument for ETH. .

What are you saying? They flew here in dirigibles?
The airships actually make the case for a strong psychological aspect to the phenomenon. People reported seeing craft and occupants that that conformed to the contemporary technology and to the contemporary narrative of human inventors.

See my last post, above this one.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: EnPassant
For example, the technology described - dating right back to the dirigibles of the late 19th century and before - could hardly have originated on earth. This facet of the phenomenon alone - dirigibles - constitutes a strong argument for ETH. And there are many other arguments.

Oh yeah?

I can't believe you posted a link to hot air balloons. An assessment of the phenomena will show that this is a most unlikely explanation. If it were so mundane an explanation the 'steam powered' argument would obtain - because it would have been an ordinary sighting - steam powered hot air balloons? No. Not steam powered flying saucers either. The steam power can only be explained as a mind under unusual psychic experience or deception. Something modern abductees - Strieber - experience all the time. The steam power argument is actually a strong argument that there is something strange going on...

originally posted by: EnPassant

I can't believe you posted a link to hot air balloons.

I can't believe you referenced turn-of-the-19th century technology as a "strong argument for ETH", so I guess we're even.

a reply to: EnPassant

Something modern abductees - Strieber - experience all the time.

Whitley Strieber is not an abductee.

Whitley Strieber experiences temporal lobe epilepsy.

That's my preference.

a reply to: Bybyots

I prefer my preferences also. That's because my preferences are based on intelligence that closely looked at the evidence. Anyone that disagrees, has not looked at the evidence close enough. Once they see things my way, then I will know that they are intelligent close lookers.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Once they see things my way, then I will know that they are intelligent close lookers.

Pre-cisely.