Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by Nohup
That is like saying just because the murder suspect was found at the scene of the crime, with the weapon of the crime and fingerprints on the victim
does not mean that he is the murderer
That's not what it's like. If we're talking about a simple, everyday thing like murder, which we all pretty much agree exists, then we can use
circumstantial evidence to help prove it. Even so, having multiple videos and witnesses wouldn't hurt.
But when you're talking about attributing one thing or another to something we can't even agree exists, like aliens from other planets, we'll all
have to go the extra distance. Circumstantial evidence just won't cut it.
A magicians trick can be explained. There is not a single magic trick that cannot be explained. Meier photographs cannot be explained. ...
Wheres the trick?
Assuming that happened exactly has you say it does, I don't know. But like I said, just because I don't know, doesn't mean it wasn't faked.
That's why it would be so important for him to provide additional evidence that backed it all up. Like multiple photos, taken from different
cameras, by neutral witnesses. That would be a big help. Not unimpeachable, but at least a start. No photo or video will ever be complete proof of
anything, no matter when they were created, because people have been faking photos ever since it was invented.
And then there is the metal sample an alloy containing rare metals and other metals and have marks showing microengineering when observed under
an electron-scanning microscrope.
Wheres the trick?
Maybe there isn't any. From what I understand, the examination never proved that it was extraterrestrial. Just unusual, which doesn't prove
anything. Again, it would really help if there was footage of an alien landing in a saucer handing the metal sample to Meier in the presence of
disinterested witnesses, it was tagged and labeled and the entire chain of
was followed into several independent labs, whose results could be compared. That's forensic science, plain and simple.
Still, if the metal sample still exists, and the dog didn't accidentally eat it, I wouldn't mind seeing additional tests done on it. I'll look at
that evidence, too. Maybe somebody can unequivocally prove it's not of this Earth. So far, though, no one has. Unusual doesn't automatically mean
The most reasonable explanation here is that that Meier is genuine. He is in contact with the Pleaidians and these UFO's are indeed beamships
of the Pleaidians.
Why try to evade the most simplest explanation?
That's hardly the simplest explanation. Even if what you say here was completely verified, how, exactly does that lead you to that conclusion? I
don't see it. Because the "aliens" said so? Do you believe every alien you talk to (or Meier supposedly talked to, if you believe the official
story, since it's doubtful you were personally there)? Now you're going to prove to me aliens never lie? Good luck with that.
Here's a little test. What, exactly, proves that Meier talked to aliens from the Pleiades, as opposed to say, for instance, human time travelers
from the future? You know, if I was a time traveler, I'd make up all kinds of fanciful stories, possibly to keep my mission secret or to minimize
damage to the timeline. Would this work as a possible alternative "explanation?"
Because if "time travelers" is just as good or maybe even a better explanation of the events as "aliens," then basically nothing has been proven.
We're back to our favorite of all answers, "I don't know."
And I don't know, because like I said, that last bit of evidence is always lacking. You apparently feel free to leap over that credibility gap and
buy the entire story. Which is fine. Do what you want, if that's what makes you feel comfortable. If you're just absolutely dying
an explanation of some kind.
Personally, I'll just stay on my side of the gap until whoever is making the claim builds me a nice, solid bridge to cross over. I've got time.
I've been waiting for over 20 years already. Although I have to say that the longer it takes for them to come up with the undeniable proof, the more
unlikely it appears that they will.
[edit on 15-4-2009 by Nohup]