It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

My friend saw alliens

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by thrashee
The sad, but consistent, thing between both the claims and the responses is bad logic and reason.


Thanks a lot for pointing out this spelling mistake.


I would like to talk about bad logic and maybe even reason. Someone was kind enough to post a link in my thread titled "Science and Its Belief System". You will get this link in a second.

Now please try to understand something: People have experiences and they share their experiences. I have had my experiences too, but I am not trying to persuade you or make you believe what I say. Quick Note: Anyone is entitled to question everything I say, but if someone opted for calling me names, this person would disqualify himself or herself immediately.

And now the crux: Any open-minded person has no problems if someone questions statements. Anyone who knows the truth should have no trouble being questioned either.
But why is nobody entitled to question science? Does a scientific degree make you the all-seeing-eye? Does a scientific degree equal anthropomorphism? Someone may now claim that if you have a better theory with something to support it, you are entitled to question science.

The problem and the question, however, is what are you going to do if what science offers has bad logic and reason? Do you still support science, because you were "conditioned" to believe what you were told, or are you going to question it, no matter what someone else says?

I would like to be more specific now. I mentioned a link a few lines above. Now let's first check what an astronomer claims. Here the quote:


if the universe is infinitely big, then the answer is simply that it isn't expanding into anything; instead, what is happening is that every region of the universe, every distance between every pair of galaxies, is being "stretched", but the overall size of the universe was infinitely big to begin with and continues to remain infinitely big as time goes on, so the universe's size doesn't change, and therefore it doesn't expand into anything.


Don’t get me wrong, but that quote doesn’t echo logic either. Do you personally believe that something infinitely big that cannot expand anymore still happens to have every region of the universe, every distance between every pair or galaxies stretched? I am not sure if I need to point it out, but how can you stretch something without changing its size in the first place?
NOTE: I don’t say that it is impossible, I am open-minded towards any possibilities, but why should I believe that or even accept it as knowledge? It is contradictive.

If you are honest to yourself, this little quote and theory is equivalent to your fairies you mentioned. And there is no data associated with it either. I mean, this is pure belief system.

And I have got a last question. Why is it a taboo to question religion? Isn’t it that science and religion have much more in common than many people want to admit?
Oh and now the link: Curious About Astronomy

Greetings

[edit on 11-2-2009 by TheWriter]




posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by thrashee
 


May I ask what is your true intention on ATS?

Thank you,

N



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWriter
But why is nobody entitled to question science? Does a scientific degree make you the all-seeing-eye? Does a scientific degree equal anthropomorphism?


No one--at least me--is saying you can't question science. Science is hardly perfect; scientists have egos, after all, and many times certain theories are pushed just because of those egos. But this isn't really a problem with science itself, but rather with the humans using it, and this occurs no matter what the discipline is. And the beauty of science is that such theories will always be challenged, so in the end it balances out.

As I said before, science is our best methodology of trying to understand our reality. Whether it's occasionally, or even often, wrong doesn't really matter, because when better theories or knowledge is obtained, science adapts to them. It's nothing more than a learning process, and as such, it's always changing.

The important point here is that this doesn't make science useless in the slightest. Just because science isn't perfect or that it questions itself doesn't mean we should toss it out the window. Indeed, we should have more faith that science is on the right track, and is not biased in obtaining only one particular answer, but rather the truth itself.



The problem and the question, however, is what are you going to do if what science offers has bad logic and reason? Do you still support science, because you were "conditioned" to believe what you were told, or are you going to question it, no matter what someone else says?


You're sneaking in a negative assumption here--that people are "conditioned" towards something. It's an underhanded attempt at discrediting the topic at hand.

Science is an attempt to discover and understand the truth. Certain discoveries may seemingly present contradictions or paradoxes along logical or rational lines, but that does not mean that the "science" is bad....it means we need to more fully understand the implications, and adjust what we perceive to be the truth. This happens all the time. In other words, the limitations aren't on science or logic, but rather our own current understanding of such things.

So to answer your question: what do you do then? You remain patient and marvel at the complexity of the universe. What you DON'T do is declare, "science is obviously flawed, so I'm tossing it out altogether." That's just silly.



Don’t get me wrong, but that quote doesn’t echo logic either.


First, let's clarify some things here: 1) You're quoting one astronomer whose comments seem illogical to you, to demonstrate how "science" is illogical. I probably don't need to point out that scientists are human beings who may not always be right or rational. 2) There is nothing in that quote that I find to be illogical.

If the universe is infinitely large, then of course it doesn't expand. The context of your quote wasn't given, so I'm going to assume that in this scenario, the universe is simply "all of reality, including all space and matter. In other words, there's nothing outside of the universe, so the universe has nothing into which it can expand.

So in such a scenario, galaxies and stars can "stretch" out an infinite amount, since the "void" into which they expand is infinite.

So to answer your question:



but how can you stretch something without changing its size in the first place?


You're not stretching the size of the universe, you're increasing the distance between matter. If two people are in a swimming pool and start off in the middle back to back, and then move farther apart, as the distance between them increases, must the size of the pool increase as well? Of course not.

Regarding contradictions....you don't have to accept anything if you don't want to. Often times, scientists are confronted with theories that are mathematically sound and fit physics models, but the implications of them are so bizarre or seem to contradict traditional logical thought, that they have a very hard time swallowing such theories. But the universe is a wonderfully complex place....most often the seeming contradictions are really failures or limits of our own understanding of the universe. Our view is incomplete, we don't have the whole picture, and thus it seems like a contradiction. History is littered with examples where these contradictions eventually make sense as more pieces of the puzzle fall into place.



this little quote and theory is equivalent to your fairies you mentioned. And there is no data associated with it either. I mean, this is pure belief system.


I'm sorry, but this is wrong. The theory you presented is based off collaborated observations of events, a whole body of scientific knowledge we already have, and evidence of what's occurring (galaxies spreading apart, etc). Don't confuse proposed theories with belief; any scientist worth his or her salt won't ever say a given theory is absolutely true, even if most of the scientific community accepts its probability as quite high.



And I have got a last question. Why is it a taboo to question religion? Isn’t it that science and religion have much more in common than many people want to admit?


I'd say, not really. And this is a very subjective question. Whether it's taboo to question religion depends on who's questioning who. Most religions don't want to be questioned because they are entirely faith-based, and they know hard questions cannot be supported without relying on faith or taking their word for it. So in this sense, questioning religion is a lot like questioning people's claims here on ATS.

Who ever said it's taboo to question science? Science is all about questioning. Science challenges itself over and over again, new theories replace old ones all the time.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by thrashee
 


May I ask what is your true intention on ATS?

Thank you,

N


Sure, feel free to. My intention is to spread a bit of critical thinking around. I think ATS is an awfully neat place sometimes, but too often in my opinion it becomes a dumping ground for people to ping one fantastic idea off the other without any real discussion of what these things really are or mean. So what you get is a snowball of increasingly fantastic ideas lacking in any real analysis. It's kind of like contagious mass paranoia in the NWO/CT threads....someone creates an OP making completely conjecture-based claims, and 15 posts later a bunch of people are ready to stock up on canned food, throw out their TVs (maybe not such a bad idea), and take up arms. Of course, they are perfectly free to do so, but it makes you wonder why more people don't stop, catch their breath, and look at things more rationally.

I'm all for discussing interesting ideas, but I believe some amount of logic and critical thinking should be adhered to while doing so. Nothing chaps my hide more than how casually people claim to know the "truth": someone says they've seen a UFO and asks what it could be, and someone else pops up and claims, "Oh, it was sausage shaped? Well, that's obvious--you saw the Greys from Zeta Reticuli, and they were scouting your neighborhood looking for hybrid hosts."

The irony here is that if you question such people or point out that they're making ENORMOUS claims without providing any explanation or reason to believe them, they'll call you close minded.

Know what I mean?




[edit on 11-2-2009 by thrashee]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Hi trashee,

I hope you are well, thank you for your comments and I will do my best to answer your points as clearly as I can. I'm new to ATS as I said, but hope to find some interesting discussions on here and it's always interesting to debate with other individuals who don't share the same thoughts as myself.


Originally posted by thrashee
It may be harsh, but I don't think it's shameful.


Obviously I'm new to ATS, and after awhile I may aggree that there are flimsy cases being posted on the board but my wariness about labelling people 'idiots' is that there are also a lot of rational, thinking and objective people who do happen to side with evidence for the ET visitation theory. Simply because science has investigated (I will come to this later) UFO's and ET's etc and regards the topic as unexplained, personally I don't feel we should be grouping 'believers' in the evidence as 'idiots'. And that, is a shame IMO.


Originally posted by thrashee
You're not really trying to use Dr. Greer as an example of credible testimony, are you?


I wasn't refering to his personal testimony no, I was refering to his work as director of the disclosure project amassing 500+ testimonies of ex military, governmental, corporate, intelligence and scientific individuals. I've heard the tired response of skeptics such as 'well they're doing it for the money now they are retired' or 'they're mistaken' or 'they are simply lying' and it never adds up.


Originally posted by thrashee
See, here is where you start slipping. Why must you find alternate means of verifying evidence when it comes to UFOs and aliens? Why can't we apply traditional scientific methods to them? What is so special about them as a physical phenomena that they are exempt from scientific scrutiny, whereas everything else in the universe is not?


Respectfully, I am not 'slipping' up. Science has regarded ufo and et phenomena as 'unexplained' after investigating the subject decades ago, and since, nothing has happened apart from flawed studies. This is where I'm wary of relying purely on science, but I do not digress to the point of discarding traditional research, but that there is research at all. When I say we need an alternate form of investigation, I am refering to mainstream science simply ignoring the subject matter, leaving it to be investigated by fringe groups not well equiped to deal with investigations.





Originally posted by thrashee
What do you mean by "mainstream"? Science is science, and while not perfect, it's the best we've got at being objective ...


I certainly agree with your previous points that science is not perfect, and also that individuals within science hold back from recovering acurate facts etc, but I refer to 'mainstream' science as the core, the canon of individuals who have the funding and capabilities to research ufology etc but if asked about the subject choose to ridicule the topic, dismiss or debunk anything related to an et explanation and any scientist willing to make further research simply will not get far in the current climate of this, funding will not be supported etc..

This is the unfortunate norm, and an attitude skeptics also persist with commonly, hence my wariness to accept that people who agree with evidence on the subject are termed as 'idiots' or an individual like Dr Greer is simply an 'idiot'. Also, by alternate means I am referring to much evidence amassed that is disgarded by science. Science for example will not take into account testimony, no matter how much it is supported by further evidence, simply because memory is fallible! Well, you know, you can say 'well then, science is right and science is the best form of research' but when we are talking about hundreds of testimony supported by further evidence, a lot of people will find science unsatisfactory.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
reply to post by thrashee
 


You may read condescension or whatever emotion you like there. It doesn't exist outside of your own perception (and any other like-minded readers). You choose how you receive information.

Because "I can" and "you can't" doesn't indicate condescension either. It's simply a statement of (changeable, temporary) fact. I can bake like few others. Can you? Does it matter? Not here, it's not at issue. Even if you can't at the moment, if it's important to you to learn and to know, you will do it. Anyone and everyone can do anything and everything given enough time for development. This is a fine example of what I meant by your expressed limited view. You assume much and are closed to further exploration and extrapolation. If you are so open-minded, show it. I'd like some evidence now, please.


If your cosmological and philosophical views are similar to mine, why do you insist upon discounting out of hand things which you have not experienced? Why do you demand this physical evidence? These three measly dimensions are so small and restricted that it's simply an absurd request. Your demands for conformity to these physical laws as known to science are just silly. If only you knew....

Look, this is futile at best. We can agree to disagree but leave off the physical demands. It's very hard to believe that you are broadminded when you ask for such things. As for meditation, might I suggest that you ask to go inward. Your answers are there.


So true , this attempt at debunking is ridiculous. they can say it aint so all day and pretend it will all go away but it is not. These things exist whether you accept them or not. It is that simple.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Truth Project
So true , this attempt at debunking is ridiculous. they can say it aint so all day and pretend it will all go away but it is not. These things exist whether you accept them or not. It is that simple.


There's frankly nothing to pretend to go away. Remember, these remarkable things curiously are only happening to those who so easily believe in them (see CosmicEgg's argument from before). Thus, they remain nothing but fairy tales for those of us who don't mind considering the possibilities, but require some good old fashioned analysis before jumping on the bandwagon.

But hey, you get the fairy tale all to yourselves! So look on the bright side.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by maarduk
but my wariness about labelling people 'idiots' is that there are also a lot of rational, thinking and objective people who do happen to side with evidence for the ET visitation theory. Simply because science has investigated (I will come to this later) UFO's and ET's etc and regards the topic as unexplained, personally I don't feel we should be grouping 'believers' in the evidence as 'idiots'. And that, is a shame IMO.


Fair enough. I made a hasty generalization there. So I'll revise it to only include those believers who scoff at wanting ANY evidence whatsoever, and who reject science and rational thought.



I wasn't refering to his personal testimony no, I was refering to his work as director of the disclosure project amassing 500+ testimonies of ex military, governmental, corporate, intelligence and scientific individuals. I've heard the tired response of skeptics such as 'well they're doing it for the money now they are retired' or 'they're mistaken' or 'they are simply lying' and it never adds up.


Unfortunately, almost every UFO "expert" has been shown, in one way or the other, to have questionable credentials or motivations. I know what the standard response to that is--the Conspiracy--but this type of reply is entirely circular, self-supporting, and supposes another unproven claim on top of the first one. In other words, baaaad logic.



When I say we need an alternate form of investigation, I am refering to mainstream science simply ignoring the subject matter, leaving it to be investigated by fringe groups not well equiped to deal with investigations.


Can't argue with you there, but I'd like to point out, science can't study what isn't available to be studied. While some may argue that the tremendous amount of UFO sightings and abductions should be evidence enough, remarkably NONE of these things ever "stick around" long enough to properly study them. So here's a thought: if aliens are real and visiting us, we can only logically conclude that they don't wish to be discovered. Blame them, not science.



Also, by alternate means I am referring to much evidence amassed that is disgarded by science. Science for example will not take into account testimony, no matter how much it is supported by further evidence, simply because memory is fallible! Well, you know, you can say 'well then, science is right and science is the best form of research' but when we are talking about hundreds of testimony supported by further evidence, a lot of people will find science unsatisfactory.


Of course science won't accept testimony. Science is not the judiciary system! This is a category error, as science is not meant to address such things. Science studies what is before us, what we observe, and what we may hypothesize from that. And all of this relies upon the scientific method, so even if a hypothesis is formed from observation, eventually you need some way of testing that hypothesis out.

Maybe a lot of people will find it unsatisfactory, but if they do, they don't really understand science as a discipline, or what it's there for.

These people should probably, again, turn their frustrations towards our visitors themselves. If they want to be discovered, they could make themselves known quite easily.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
thrashee, I am truly happy for you that you've got science to hold on to. It is no facetious remark and no matter how much we disagree, I still respect your opinion.

Keep up writing in here. I am going to check the forum in a few hours. It's time to hit the sack now


Greetings



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Hi thrashee,

it's nice to hear from you, thank you for your comments, I will again do my best to reply so please bear with me, in a 'rational' and 'logical' fashion.


Originally posted by thrashee
Fair enough. I made a hasty generalization there. So I'll revise it to only include those believers who scoff at wanting ANY evidence whatsoever, and who reject science and rational thought.


Thank you, and I certainly don't discard science and rational thought, I research and investigate the area as well as I can, and many do, but in the end simply find the 'evidence' compelling.


Originally posted by thrashee
Unfortunately, almost every UFO "expert" has been shown, in one way or the other, to have questionable credentials or motivations. I know what the standard response to that is--the Conspiracy--but this type of reply is entirely circular, self-supporting, and supposes another unproven claim on top of the first one. In other words, baaaad logic.


Firstly, and again, politely, branding 'almost every UFO "expert" is quite generalised and vague whereas specifically Dr. Greer's credentials and motivations are, like many, quite evident and transparent and I'm again wary to slant someone's character because of unproven allegations or speculations. While there maybe some individuals in ufology, like other groups who are suspect, doesn't mean we should discard everything. My response was evidently self supporting just as your points were, so I am unaware of an issue providing myself with supporting arguments. As for an 'unproven claim', respectfully, I wasn't saying science had proved this to be true, which is what I assume you are referring to, but, I was stating that this type of evidence should be taken seriously, and if that is 'baaaad logic' then so be it.


Originally posted by thrashee
Can't argue with you there, but I'd like to point out, science can't study what isn't available to be studied. While some may argue that the tremendous amount of UFO sightings and abductions should be evidence enough, remarkably NONE of these things ever "stick around" long enough to properly study them. So here's a thought: if aliens are real and visiting us, we can only logically conclude that they don't wish to be discovered. Blame them, not science.


You seem to have missed a lot of my points, possibly you misunderstood my previous comments I don't know, but certainly science has not been actively investigating ufos and et phenomena for the past decades out of choice, there is certainly plenty of evidence to be studied and it is always being updated and added to and material certainly does infact 'stick around' for a long period of time, cases have been well documented, footage has been preserved and further evidence has come to light.


Originally posted by thrashee
Of course science won't accept testimony. Science is not the judiciary system! This is a category error, as science is not meant to address such things.


Well, this is where I have to disagree about the use and purpose of science, where obviously I agree science does not investigate phenomena, but personally I think that more could be done, I mean, we are talking about lights in the sky and ets, simply having the stance that if we don't have an Et on a table or a crashed flying saucer will never go beyond simply 'unexplained phenomena' which is the best science has come up with so far.


Originally posted by thrashee
Maybe a lot of people will find it unsatisfactory, but if they do, they don't really understand science as a discipline, or what it's there for.

These people should probably, again, turn their frustrations towards our visitors themselves. If they want to be discovered, they could make themselves known quite easily.


No comment.

Anyway, I thank you for your remarks and take care.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by maarduk
Thank you, and I certainly don't discard science and rational thought, I research and investigate the area as well as I can, and many do, but in the end simply find the 'evidence' compelling.


Nor do I doubt this. I haven't placed you in any way in an "idiot" category




Firstly, and again, politely, branding 'almost every UFO "expert" is quite generalised and vague whereas specifically Dr. Greer's credentials and motivations are, like many, quite evident and transparent and I'm again wary to slant someone's character because of unproven allegations or speculations.


And I'm wary to put my trust in a self-proclaimed ambassador to extraterrestrial life who charges money to host events whose sole purpose is to reveal the truth to the public. Any time such people start charging money to release such "truth", the red flag flies up immediately.

As I said, I have yet to see a UFO "expert" who doesn't have some kind of suspicious motivation behind their activities. It's sad, really, because quite a few times I've gone off researching people hoping that they won't throw such obvious signs for skepticism.



As for an 'unproven claim', respectfully, I wasn't saying science had proved this to be true, which is what I assume you are referring to, but, I was stating that this type of evidence should be taken seriously, and if that is 'baaaad logic' then so be it.


Why should it be taken seriously? You don't just take such things seriously willy nilly unless a) there is enough evidence to warrant it, or b) you simply want to for personal reasons.

Claims of such nature do not warrant respect out the door. They have to earn it. Now....I will concede that many, many government workers from all walks of life making testimonies that *something* is going on is quite compelling. I'll be frank with you: it wouldn't surprise me if something WAS going on. In fact, the kid in me (that wondrous, hopeful part) hopes something IS going on. Just because of how enticingly fantastic that would be. I'm serious here, I really do. And it's precisely because of this hope that I grow increasingly agitated and annoyed every time some "proof" is revealed to have holes shot through it.

I want there to be something going on. But I also want us to definitively prove that it is. Anything less is just settling for a what-if.



You seem to have missed a lot of my points, possibly you misunderstood my previous comments I don't know, but certainly science has not been actively investigating ufos and et phenomena for the past decades out of choice, there is certainly plenty of evidence to be studied and it is always being updated and added to and material certainly does infact 'stick around' for a long period of time, cases have been well documented, footage has been preserved and further evidence has come to light.


This type of evidence is not science. Understand that the scientific method, in order to test a hypothesis, must have something to test. It must be testable and falsifiable. Video footage doesn't cut it. Think about it....what would video footage prove if it were determined that "something" was not a hoax? Exactly that: "something" occurred, but there would be no way to prove what that "something" was.

What I mean here is, we need a flying saucer to crash. Something that can be retained, examined physically, etc. And yeah, I know all about Roswell. A pity one of the lead book writers on the subject was proven to be a fraud by his own co-author.



Well, this is where I have to disagree about the use and purpose of science, where obviously I agree science does not investigate phenomena, but personally I think that more could be done, I mean, we are talking about lights in the sky and ets, simply having the stance that if we don't have an Et on a table or a crashed flying saucer will never go beyond simply 'unexplained phenomena' which is the best science has come up with so far.


It's the only thing it can come up with in such cases, and rightfully so. I don't think you're appreciating the purpose of the scientific method here. Science can't really "investigate" weird lights or personal testimony. There's nothing to recreate there. There's nothing to test. There is absolutely no way science can derive a hypothesis from such things, and furthermore test that hypothesis.

This is what science does. And we should want science to keep doing that very thing. It prevents circumstantial testimony or evidence from becoming a "scientific truth", and there is an enormously good reason for that. Can you imagine if science signed off on any number of claims from the past? The Loch Ness monster would be real, Atlantis would be real, witches would be real, demons would be real, Santa Claus would be real....the list goes on and on.

I think people mistakenly think science should validate anything they believe has more than enough evidence to support. What they don't understand is that the scientific method is more than just gathering evidence. You have to be able to test theories in order to claim they are true. And we should welcome this kind of rigid framework, because we are, after all, defining "truth" here. Settling for anything less is exactly that....settling.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Jeanne2006
 


I wonder how yer friend knows they are aliens. There are beings in this world that can look as we would think an alien would look like. Also they appear in a way that we would understand.

You can see and experience things in yer third eye, it seems as real as anything you'd consider to be reality. Like an interactive vision.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I can remember this one time.
I was in the middle of a meditation when i saw this face appear.
It was defenitly some kinda alien and it talked to me and said in about 24 days itll visit earth for "samples". the wierd part was the dream i had exactly 24 days after. i was on another planet being showed a rip in the universe. the "samples" are to try and fix this hole.
apparently in my dream Earth was the only place in the galaxy to mine gold.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Alright, let's see what science has to offer that might possibly allow for the *outlandish* claims my cohorts and I have made here. Here's a start:
sciencenow.sciencemag.org...
physicsworld.com...
perhaps you can purchase this one:
www.unifiedreality.com...

There's lots more out there. I have to be off now for a few hours so I look forward to lively discussion later on.

I think we can get past Mr thrashee's objections now and he can now concede the floor to matters for which this thread, this forum and this site are meant. Thank you, thrashee, for your understanding in this matter.

It just sprang to mind that someone might question the relevance of the examples. Hmm.. we're back at square one. I see it, but then my view of things is somewhat different from others who haven't/can't/don't venture outside of "the known universe", so to speak. What needs be understood is that everything is everywhere all the time. You don't have to "go" somewhere. There are no boundaries. Science and religion are equally correct at this point in time. There are elements of the Truth in both. Lift the veil and you'll see.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
Alright, let's see what science has to offer that might possibly allow for the *outlandish* claims my cohorts and I have made here. Here's a start:
sciencenow.sciencemag.org...
physicsworld.com...
perhaps you can purchase this one:
www.unifiedreality.com...



Ah, yes! The beloved misappropriation and misunderstanding of the implications behind quantum physics! It's funny how many people who decry science love to invoke quantum physics as a catch all for their mystical interpretations.

The literal implications of quantum physics are, indeed, spooky. But they're also rather meaningless: don't forget at what level these things apply--the quantum level. So before you rush off to prove that you can pass through walls, understand that you are at a macro level, where, unfortunately, Newtonian physics still apply. But hey, given an infinite amount of time of your banging your head against the wall, you just might make it through (if you don't understand what I'm saying here, you rightly shouldn't be bringing up quantum physics in the first place).

As Richard Feynman stated, "It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." It's a pity that the likes of Gary Zukav, Deepok Chopra, and Wayne Dyer have used the sheer bizarre nature of quantum physics as "scientific evidence" that spiritual and/or mystical beliefs are true.



I think we can get past Mr thrashee's objections now and he can now concede the floor to matters for which this thread, this forum and this site are meant. Thank you, thrashee, for your understanding in this matter.


Nice appeal, but it is denied. I left you alone, after all, and continued a rather civil discussion with others, so why you're referencing me yet again, after your suggestion to take it to PM, is beyond me. Apparently you're not so old of a soul to pass up the opportunity to engage in banter, eh?



It just sprang to mind that someone might question the relevance of the examples. Hmm.. we're back at square one. I see it, but then my view of things is somewhat different from others who haven't/can't/don't venture outside of "the known universe", so to speak.


Ah, yes. The not-so-special one making sure that we all understand how special she is. We get it, CosmicEgg, you're special.



What needs be understood is that everything is everywhere all the time.
You don't have to "go" somewhere. There are no boundaries. Science and religion are equally correct at this point in time. There are elements of the Truth in both. Lift the veil and you'll see.


I could have gotten the same wisdom from a fortune cookie. Is there a point in this, or are you just trying really, really hard to sound wise?



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   
This thread is still alive
and we talk about "meet aliens during a journey" ?
For some postings I have think I am on a wrong thread

* sorry I am a little bit ironic today*

To come back to the aliens... I have think about it, and maybe there was a alien and has talk to her, maybe he has tell " Hi, I am a alien and want to talk with you!" But maybe it was only a traveler, who wants to makes jokes



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   
@vereny
No this is still the right thread. It only got a bit more complex


Greetings



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by thrashee

Nor do I doubt this. I haven't placed you in any way in an "idiot" category
...



Hi again thrashee! It's me, I keep popping up like a bad penny lol. I just wanted to respond to your points and comments again, politely, in a friendly fashion and in keeping with the good spirit of debate.

Thank you for not labelling me an idiot, I do appreciate that, I honestly do try my best to evaluate, research and intelligently and objectively discuss such matters as ufology and phenomena etc, I am not perfect, I do make mistakes and if I do I'm the first to admit this, so I thank you for your candor and understanding, you're obviously a nice guy trashee.

I will summerize my points, I think, as one poster mentioned, some readers might think they're in the wrong thread with some of these posts, but honestly readers, myself, thrashee and others are merely discussing the validity and evidence of Et visitation in light of Et communication after the OP concerning Et telepathy.

Thank you for replying that you think 'something' may indeed be going on with the witness testimony of several hundred well respected, named with high credentials, invididuals. You know, I'm the first to admit that a lot of ufology is nonsense, disinformation, misinformation and outright hoaxes, and I'm the first to be skeptical when it comes to 'alien abduction' and so called documents stating an Et-Government liason and cover-up.

I once saw a programme here in the UK entitled 'Conspiracies' hosted by Danny Wallace, it turned out to be the same old debunk now think later approach to ufology. They alleged that Stanton Friedman was simply in it for the money and basically a con artist! He was making sales of dvds and books and charging at lectures, but you know, these people are simply making a living, they are rightly or wrongly proffessionals, and I seriously doubt they are raking in millions for their efforts, but understandably, like any proffession, they need to be paid.

Concerning Dr Greer's fees, well you know, his 'fees' actually are non profit and do go towards certain projects he runs, as well as the fact that he did give up a 200K medical career to pursue without profit the ufo and free energy field. Surely, if he was looking to make a fast buck he would have done the wise thing and stayed in medicine rather than self publishing his books and running workshops contacting ets etc.

Readers, regarding the OP, trashee and other skeptics would have you believe that science is the only answer regarding ufo phenomena. I disagree. Just yesterday here in the UK a UK banking whistleblower's claims were all over the front page news and the evening news, a named individual resigned and even the PM commented that the allegations need to be investigated. Now, we have scores of allegations from reliable 'whistleblowers' and little has even be reported by the press let alone investigated. John Podesta, chairman of the new administration transition team has commented 'it's time to find out what the truth really is that's out there' referring to ufos, because 'it's right ... because it's the law' and that is where I stand on the issue.

Yes, I agree with trashee that science does not have the hard data, such as hard evidence, such as a crashed saucer, a dead Et etc to substantiate anything more than the unknown, but is this enough? I'm wary of simply sitting back and forgetting the whole episode from the 1940's to present of ufos, surely isn't it the greatest question, and indeed, deserving of further investigation, even if it is not scientific, it can still be proved either way, but nothing has been or is being done and pointing to the Condon report is quite innadaquate considering it's selective research, dubious motivations and misleading claims.

Anyway, I hope I haven't gone off on a tangent, and back to the OP and and discussing Et telepathy!

Thank you, take care



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by thrashee

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by thrashee
 


May I ask what is your true intention on ATS?

Thank you,

N


Sure, feel free to. My intention is to spread a bit of critical thinking around. I think ATS is an awfully neat place sometimes, but too often in my opinion it becomes a dumping ground for people to ping one fantastic idea off the other without any real discussion of what these things really are or mean. So what you get is a snowball of increasingly fantastic ideas lacking in any real analysis. It's kind of like contagious mass paranoia in the NWO/CT threads....someone creates an OP making completely conjecture-based claims, and 15 posts later a bunch of people are ready to stock up on canned food, throw out their TVs (maybe not such a bad idea), and take up arms. Of course, they are perfectly free to do so, but it makes you wonder why more people don't stop, catch their breath, and look at things more rationally.

I'm all for discussing interesting ideas, but I believe some amount of logic and critical thinking should be adhered to while doing so. Nothing chaps my hide more than how casually people claim to know the "truth": someone says they've seen a UFO and asks what it could be, and someone else pops up and claims, "Oh, it was sausage shaped? Well, that's obvious--you saw the Greys from Zeta Reticuli, and they were scouting your neighborhood looking for hybrid hosts."

The irony here is that if you question such people or point out that they're making ENORMOUS claims without providing any explanation or reason to believe them, they'll call you close minded.

Know what I mean?


Thank you for your reply. Makes sense to me.

I think that most people on this forum are honestly searching for the "truth" in the best way possible for them. Your way is one of empirical science, pragmatism and logic. I admire that. On the other hand I don't think that we're able to quantify all that is.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by vereny
 


That's exactly my point there above: Let's get back to the topic at hand.

Firstly, let's not start off thinking we've misinterpreted what we've seen on our journeys. That's a mistake. You have to know what you're experiencing is real and correct. You can't see this stuff with your normal sensory organs because, obviously, our consciousness is elsewhere. The physical we're used to does not apply. You can smell, you can see, you can feel, you can hear, you know (because those are our senses) in just the same ways but, as you ladies know, it's different somehow. Whatever you do, don't doubt your experiences. You attract energies that are like your own so trust that you're safe in your situation out there too. Never, ever doubt.

Shall we do some traveling then? I need some practice with directed travel. It's been primarily spontaneous for me to this point. Maybe, with your help, I could finish that time travel into one of my past lives.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join