Debunking the Debunkers??? Help here

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: flamengo
When we are dealing with such subject we are not dealing with natural phenomena, we are supposedly dealing with an other cognitive intelligence, that is supposedly way superior in technology and therefore has an understanding of physics way superior than ours, and a way to deal with exopolitics way, but way different than ours, that is problematic per se, and very naive to expect a pedestrian answer, instead of invalidate the phenomena, it actually really validates it.

I just don't think that's proper logic. What you're basically saying is, "This is such a complex phenomenon that it cannot be explained, and that complexity and lack of explanation proves it up." That's just not right.

And let me expand it, the point here is this, their "logic" is not simplistic, therefore do not expect an easy task, is it clear now?

originally posted by: flamengo
Why they would lie?

I accept that they're telling the tale as truthfully as they can, but can their interpretation simply be accepted without further proof? Why would they be right? Couldn't they be completely mistaken? Couldn't the "aliens" be lying to them? Well, the best way to determine that would be to have some kind of objective evidence to back up what they're saying.

As I indicated above, if they experienced something that proved something to them beyond all doubt... good for them. But if they want to convince me of whatever insight they attained, they're going to have to give me something more, because I wasn't there, and I'm not in the habit of just accepting what people say. Because as good and trustworthy and honest as they may be, they might still be completely wrong.

a reply to: Blue Shift

I think that I have posted this before, but let me go again at it, and now I am going into my theory if I may.
These "upstair guys"business is to tell narrative, and they convey their narrative through a theatre, we interpret this actions, construct our civilisation around those tales. Been them the Elohim, the Watchers, the fairies, the jinn,the aliens, their relationship still basically non altered. They supposedly do this whether you want it or not. They are not asking your permition and not asking you to believe.

That implies they are controlling the narrative, who will see them, who will investigate, and so and such, what image will be produced, that is really artistic clever stuff, there is a lot beauty and no short of genius involved.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
As I indicated above, if they experienced something that proved something to them beyond all doubt... good for them.

I was once convinced (beyond a doubt, at the time) that I had a sighting that virtually HAD to have been "otherworldly" because I lacked a reasonable explanation for it.

However, I persevered over the following years trying to find an explanation, and I did find one. So call me both: Someone who thought beyond doubt that I saw an alien craft -AND- someone who found an explanation for my sighting (and no longer in the "beyond all doubt" category).

DONT MESS WITH VALLEE !
all the others however are just guys with big egos

a reply to: flamengo

Yes...I understood what you were looking for....Let us know if you do locate some interesting reading!

It's getting harder and harder to find good reads these days...and as I said/meant....its all subjective.

The real "truths" these days are more elusive... Thanks!

a reply to: mysterioustranger

Joseph p farrell is a very interesting writer, though I disagree on several issues.

originally posted by: humanoidlord
DONT MESS WITH VALLEE !
all the others however are just guys with big egos

Yeah, but it's not like Vallee doesn't have an agenda. He still leans toward a Rosicrucian explanation, although he is good enough to indicate that he hasn't found it yet... or any explanation at the moment.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: humanoidlord
DONT MESS WITH VALLEE !
all the others however are just guys with big egos

Yeah, but it's not like Vallee doesn't have an agenda. He still leans toward a Rosicrucian explanation, although he is good enough to indicate that he hasn't found it yet... or any explanation at the moment.

That does not mean he is right, that just means he is a cuck. He already found the most likely answers to most of the enigmas then he rolls all back again. I wonder why.

In some of he later books he throws quite a few non arguments out there, scares the sheit out of me why the lo fi intellectual dishonesty, still interesting stuff though.

originally posted by: flamengo
And let me expand it, the point here is this, their "logic" is not simplistic, therefore do not expect an easy task, is it clear now?

Nope. The thing about logic is that it is simple. Simple and consistent.
www.manyworldsoflogic.com...

a reply to: Blue Shift

ok, my bad, pattern of behaviour not simplistic as one would expect, that is what I meant.

originally posted by: flamengo
ok, my bad, pattern of behaviour not simplistic as one would expect, that is what I meant.

Not a problem. I also understand that a lot of what we call logic is based on semantics, which requires us to come to some kind of agreement and consensus as to what the words in an argument mean. But sometimes we don't have a consensus. I'm still trying to get people around here to define "God" in such a way that it doesn't have an inherent paradox built into it, so trying to argue about God (whatever it may or may not be) is essentially pointless.

And logic also depends on how human beings interpret causality and singularity. If we define something as "A," and we define something else as "B," chances are good that we mean that those are two different, distinct things. Otherwise, if they were the same, we'd call one thing "A," and the other thing "A." But those definitions can be arbitrary. Does one plus one equal two? Not if they're water drops. One plus one equals one.

Anyway, if the aliens' logic is not simple and linear and clearly defined, maybe it could be that they're working on a much higher level of understanding that we are, or maybe they just don't define reality in the same way we do. But... then we would still have to prove that logically to our own understanding, or it's just gibberish and chaos.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

IF a sighting was of an experimental military aircraft then they would want to obfuscate. UFO .. yes .. alien origin, no.

I agree, yes some UFO's are indeed military secret aircraft. No, not all of them are.

And according to some blue book material that was classified and now declassified, the secondary report admitted the military didn't know what the object was, and ruled out prosaic explanations or their own aircraft. And no, this still doesn't prove it was extraterrestrial, just unknown. Just those facts in the record are quite interesting.

originally posted by: flamengo
a reply to: Blue Shift

I think that I have posted this before, but let me go again at it, and now I am going into my theory if I may.
These "upstair guys"business is to tell narrative, and they convey their narrative through a theatre, we interpret this actions, construct our civilisation around those tales. Been them the Elohim, the Watchers, the fairies, the jinn,the aliens, their relationship still basically non altered. They supposedly do this whether you want it or not. They are not asking your permition and not asking you to believe.

That implies they are controlling the narrative, who will see them, who will investigate, and so and such, what image will be produced, that is really artistic clever stuff, there is a lot beauty and no short of genius involved.

This is very starkly true, and also very obviously still happening even here on ATS. Some replies have given excellent examples of this same theme. Copycat style. It is very interesting as a social study.

a reply to: Blue Shift

yeah buts its better than the alien circlejerk

a reply to: Outlier13

Carl Sagan is a complete turn coat. Early on he was a believer and advocate of extraterrestrial life. It was only after he became mainstream that he changed his tune. He was given the "comply or slink into obscurity" speech by someone at one point

Never been a fan of Sagan, way overrated, and listening to his over annunciation of sentences is like nails on a chalkboard. But he did the smart thing here, its not like we are talking civil rights, I wouldnt have sacrificed my career for it.

a reply to: 111DPKING111

For people who likes mr Sagan, please watch him lying to his teeth on this one, spinning the obvious here.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: flamengo

How do I post a video? make it available to watch directly on the forum?

a reply to: flamengo

You have to just put the last part of the YouTube link in, like this:

[ yvid]rbfOqgQVKmI[ /yvid] (Note: I broke the BBC code with spaces).

Here, I'll embed your video for you:

originally posted by: flamengo
a reply to: 111DPKING111

For people who likes mr Sagan, please watch him lying to his teeth on this one, spinning the obvious here.

www.youtube.com...

He is doing what any good scientist should do: Not letting his personal feelings on the subject of life elsewhere cloud his objectivity about the quality of the evidence for alien visitation.

From Sagan's lectures, writings (novels and essays), and his interviews, it is obvious than Dr. Sagan truly thinks life exists elsewhere -- i.e., that would be his personal feeling. However, there is no verifiable evidence for that life.

Sagan is saying in this particular interview that you linked that even though he thinks that other life exists in the universe, he does not feel there is verifiable evidence to say that other life is visiting us.


I'll take that a step further. In my case, I think life almost certainly exists elsewhere, and I think it is possible that they are in fact visiting Earth (or have in the past), but there is no verifiable evidence for me to say anything more than "it is possible" that aliens have/are visiting Earth.

While the circumstantial evidence for life elsewhere in the universe is overwhelming (albeit circumstantial), I think the actual hard evidence (which, granted, is better than circumstantial) that they are visiting us is lacking.

I would love to be proven wrong; I would think it great if we attain verifiable evidence that alien spacecraft have been visiting Earth. However, right now I feel that almost all of evidence supporting alien visitation could all be ascribed to misidentifications of natural phenomenon, misidentifications of terrestrial craft, faulty recollection of details, intentional hoaxes, and subconscious fantasy.

And even the cases that seem unexplainable do not have anything about them that would positively identify them as "alien visitors". What I mean is that just because a UFO case seems conventionally unexplainable, that does not mean we should automatically attribute that case as being a real alien craft just because "we can't think of another explanation".

The burden of proof should be higher than "we have no explanation for the reported details of this UFO sighting, so it must be alien".