Venus Species vs. Orion Species

Greetings,

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by dreamingawake
Thanks OP bookmarking for further reading. Sad how the UFO forums are troll haven, not your fault!

Yes, sad isn't it that there are people who insist on those pesky things called 'facts'.

One persons facts is another persons perception. We experience things differently, you agree on what you BELIEVE, others agree and believe on what they percieve in life.

We are not wrong, you are not wrong. We are all right, Right?

Be safe be well

Spiro

reply to post by Spiro


I just dunked my head in a bucket of ice after reading that. Facts are facts. It doesn't matter what angle you look at them from. You're describing perception and opinions, which are not facts.

Greetings,

Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by Spiro

 

I just dunked my head in a bucket of ice after reading that. Facts are facts. It doesn't matter what angle you look at them from. You're describing perception and opinions, which are not facts.

Mind you dont get cold

What are facts? Are they colaberated by a goup of people that come to the conlcusion it is a fact? Does it have to be 1 million agreeing on something that makes if a fact? Does it have to be a mainstream scientist that deems it factual for all to believe.

Or is a fact something that you believe in that someone has proposed as a fact?

Please, tell me

Be safe be well

Spiro

You know, I've always considered that, even if we assume these types of encounters are real, the information is exactly what's given as is, what's given isn't necessarily true. There's no good reason to believe any of it. I mean, there's no good reason to believe aliens if real are any better than we are, nor are they necessarily as different and "alien" as we expect and assume them to be. There's no reason to believe any alien is who they say they are, nor that any information they give only us that makes us look ridiculous when we make claims they are sure to give us no proof of, is in any way true.

reply to post by Spiro


The speed of light is a fact. The distance from the earth to the sun is a fact. A belief is not a fact by the very definition of the words. There is no such thing as: "You have your facts and I have mine." Facts.are.facts.

Don't confuse belief and opinion with fact.

On the topic of facts. Well, to be fair. A fact is a fact until it's disproven by a greater understanding of the fact. A thing can be observed and measured, and reasons extrapolated to explain the consistently demonstrable observation, however, that doesn't necessitate the full and total understanding of what's being observed and measured. Kind of like how correlation does not equal causation. We've been wrong before about things we thought were facts, or at the very least, were lacking some of the mechanics, or misunderstanding the mechanics. Let's look at evolution for example. With quantum physics, the discovery of smaller and smaller particles, and big physics questions still lacking answers. Is hard to call anything a true hard fact, since really we don't understand the mechanics in full that cause the universal rules we observe in full detail. Which means quite possibly that the mechanics of things we observe might be alterable through artificial means we simply do not understand, because ultimately a lot of fact is determined through observation and testing which demonstrates consistency without truly understanding the mechanics at the levels we still cannot truly measure yet.

So I ask, what is a "fact" other than a really consistent observation? A true fact is something that is true, irregardless of opinion. It is simply true. The problem is, without knowing all things about something, it is difficult to state a "rule" is a fact if you don't really know the complete mechanics of the game or what makes the rule true or work. Speed of light for example is observable and measurable, but until we completely understand the physics of it at the most fundamental level, it is really difficult to say unequivocally that it cannot be altered, or worked around or that what seems to be true may not true because what we assume are accurate correlations are in fact not as related as we think.

reply to post by raymundoko




Try looking up the definition of the word "evidence"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

CO2 and greenhouse gases, maybe we are being teraformed for the Venus invasion.

reply to post by ArdenWolf


Been saying this for years....

This is the reason that scientists are always observing new data-sets and changing currently existing "facts" or theories.

In a very mundane way of putting it, facts aren't facts at all, they're only what we've observed to be consistent.
To pile it up, all these "facts" must be empirical and observable to even be called scientific. When we take quantum mechanics into consideration, it seems as though nothing we observe can actually be trusted as "true behavior"...

So how can one describe a scientific fact when one doesn't know if the conditions testing that fact were neutral or not?

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Wow, summarize what I say so succinctly. I'm terrible at saying things without using a million words. Though always made me good at getting the word count needed in reports with minimal information easy.

I would think to discuss this, one needs to prove that these "facts" exist. Otherwise, you are just speculating on videos, links and works of fiction, and only hypothetical in nature and conclusion.

The opinions the OP speculates with, can't be any different in nature from the response he was asking for. So, neither side could be proven. So its pointless to speculate.

It might be fun to "what if"...if the subject matter was proven to exist. It has not been.

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by ArdenWolf

 

Been saying this for years....

This is the reason that scientists are always observing new data-sets and changing currently existing "facts" or theories.

In a very mundane way of putting it, facts aren't facts at all, they're only what we've observed to be consistent.
To pile it up, all these "facts" must be empirical and observable to even be called scientific. When we take quantum mechanics into consideration, it seems as though nothing we observe can actually be trusted as "true behavior"...

So how can one describe a scientific fact when one doesn't know if the conditions testing that fact were neutral or not?

A2D

In this case I think it would be nice to have just one empirical fact before we throw the word fact around, but we can't even say we have one.

Originally posted by Spiro

Or is a fact something that you believe in that someone has proposed as a fact?

Spiro

Now we are heading down the path of Faith....

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by ArdenWolf

 

When we take quantum mechanics into consideration, it seems as though nothing we observe can actually be trusted as "true behavior"...

So how can one describe a scientific fact when one doesn't know if the conditions testing that fact were neutral or not?

A2D

Yep, that's when things get interesting. The traditional methods of measure and observation don't apply easily to a Probabilistic Universe, and can actually get in the way. However, IF we assign (or determine) the probability of states and events, and provide some sort of tracking we can watch the "normal" universe unfold as a series of probabilities. It is not unlike finding the area under a curve; a sort of "summation" of reality (think math / calculus)

Thought of this way, there is far more sense to it all.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Well we can't exist without faith. Everyone depends on it. Every action we take is based to some degree on faith. A "fact" is in a lot of ways just a really good bet. Really if you think about it, our decisions are quite often made on intuitive bets. Life's a gamble, and what science really is, is our attempting to learn the rules to better our odds at winning the game more often and more consistently.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

In this case I think it would be nice to have just one empirical fact before we throw the word fact around, but we can't even say we have one.

Precisely my point.

Those that say Venus is inhabitable and no life can come from there, are indeed mistaken. It's completely possible for life to come from virtually anywhere. We have no "facts" for the basis of life, other than carbon-based life. Now, if we were to think about the message we're trying to convey...and perhaps phrase it as "It is highly unlikely that any intelligent carbon-based life forms could have emerged from Venus." then that would be much more acceptable, yet it still leaves the door wide open for theoretical forms of biochemistry.

But again, we come full circle to having no facts about any alternative biochemistry either. So we're forced to take possibility and probability into account rather than pure facts. Anything is possible, I am forced to agree...but not everything is probable, this much I know.

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


I wouldn't say anything is possible. I mean, there sort of needs to be some empirical truth. Just because we don't know it, doesn't make it any less so. So no, not "anything is possible." A better statement would be. "Anything might be possible."

Originally posted by Xtrozero

In this case I think it would be nice to have just one empirical fact before we throw the word fact around, but we can't even say we have one.

Sure you can (for Venus)

Surface temp. min mean max
Kelvin 737 K[2]
Celsius 464 °C

Many more empirical "facts" available at Wikipedia.com

And here; your "fact" in context:
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality (From Webster's)

IF all y'all are going to argue "objective reality" you will never get anywhere. "Objective" reality exists only in the eye of the beholder, just like beauty.

This whole question was brought about by Ra, the source of the Law of One claiming to be from Venus. We have already established that unless Ra is an extremophile then he isn't from Venus. Which should have brought up the question of; "Just how in the hell can Ra relate to the "Human condition" IF he is not Human himself?"

Now in addition to the "fact" that I've shown RA to "not-be-true" using ancient tradition (Ra should feel right at home there), by illustrating the inharmoniousness of his being, we find that he really has no "method" of identifying with the Human condition and therefore Humans in general. Thus any message that is derived from contact with such a being will have little or no context, the Human "receiver" will not be able to make any kind of sense, and thus; no message.

(I'm somewhat telepathic, can make it work most of the time with people I know personally. I have tried to make it work with my Wolves. It did, sort of. I can't get good imagery, feelings are almost unrecognizable. The real "zinger"; they don't see to have the issues I do...perhaps I'm trying to hard. Thing is, cross species like that? Very difficult; even for "telepath-in-training", very, very, difficult.)

ok so I take it most of the so called proof comes from people who channel?Just curious.On a side note are there any xenobilogists on ATS who could speculate what type of life could exist on a venus type planet ?

lastly I have to go with the orions because there slave girls are just to hot.

reply to post by othello

what type of life could exist on a venus

Air born life , it has been speculated that life could exist in the atmosphere of Venus , it would probably be no more than microbial but life is life .
I doubt it can channel though

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
Now, if we were to think about the message we're trying to convey...and perhaps phrase it as "It is highly unlikely that any intelligent carbon-based life forms could have emerged from Venus." then that would be much more acceptable, yet it still leaves the door wide open for theoretical forms of biochemistry.

You remind e of my 18 yo. He is a bit overly intelligent, and insists on the use of logic to the point of "pain". At some point he will have to learn, as I did, that too much sense and logic are not necessarily a good; and can in fact get in the way in our search for truth. By the way; I'm a 66yo software engineer. I work mostly for business and science.

At some point you will have to accept that probability is the same as those "facts" you value so greatly.

Truth is YOU, we all, use probability all the time in our day-to-day lives without even knowing. Every time you make a "prediction" you use Bayesian Inference, and you make "predictions" all the time (ever bounce a ball off a wall, and catch it?). Actually, we couldn't get through a single day without probability in its many forms.