how its possible?

a reply to: humanoidlord


Sorry! I was just rolling "ludicrious" around on the tip of my tongue. It's very orange. I like it.

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: james1947

not you again !!!!!!!!!!
i ain't even going to answer all this, because its going to cause a serious thread derailing

Not really man, you are promoting IDH and saying that ETH has so much evidence against it. You are asking "why" the extraterrestrial theory is still number 1...I'm answering that question.

You are trying to say that IDH makes more sense, yet there is no evidence, physical or otherwise, to support it. There aren't even any serious scientific hypotheses to support the notion of alternate realities...all IDH has is science fiction.

On the other hand; I can prove there are other stars, I can prove that those stars have planets, I can prove that some of those planets are Earth like. Give me some time and equipment and I'll find you a planet with an advanced civilization. These are the things that science has already done, or can do right now. there is no need for wild speculation.

The work I've done demonstrates a probability so great that Extraterrestrials HAVE visited and interacted with Humans that it may as well be 1 (one).

So, if we are going to talk about evidence, I'd like to see yours...a "white paper" will do.

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

that would still be ETH, just with an even more ludicrious technology than FTL travel

Do you know that NASA and some physicists have figured out "Warp Mechanics"? The process is actually rather simple, the implementation not so much.

The point is: FTL is not a ludicrous technology, it is a technology that will probably be experimented with, in space, in my lifetime and I'm almost 72.

(heh, they've even reduced the energy requirements to a fusion reactor)

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s

To every other sentient and potentially sentient species in the known universe, we are the aliens.

Well true, but not sure your point...

a reply to: Jay-morris

again the "it could be a lot of things at the same time" theory has one problem: earth isn't a interesting planet in the great scale of things

a reply to: madenusa

this thread isn't about 9/11

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

I suspect that scientific normalisation could very well encompass a Vallee-friendly interdimensional explanation

thats what i believe too, i have yet to find a explanation that makes more sense

a reply to: james1947

Do you have proof of the ETH being valid? And not some people who look like they smoked pot?

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

well duh

a reply to: james1947

the problem is that you don't like evidence, and will just handwave away any of the problems in your theory
so for the sake of my sanity i ain't going to debate you

a reply to: james1947

are you a thomas morrison sockpuppet account?
your claims and debating styles are very similar

a reply to: Specimen

well i do think barney hill saw something, his wife however was sadly not an example of sanity

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: james1947

Do you have proof of the ETH being valid? And not some people who look like they smoked pot?

Yes.

Look here...The landing page is interactive...mouse over stars for names, click for more info on star. Use the navigation to find more information...

There is also a white paper.

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: james1947

the problem is that you don't like evidence, and will just handwave away any of the problems in your theory
so for the sake of my sanity i ain't going to debate you

No actually you are wrong!!!

I like evidence, real evidence, and the discussion of said evidence, the problem is you don't have any.

I have NEVER "handwaved" any issues with my theory...I have worked, sometimes with serious difficulty, to resolve any issues with my theory and evidence...you just don't like that I can solve scientific issues with science.

Perhaps IF you made an attempt to actually understand what is being said it might help, Becoming frustrated because I can easily explain perceived issues shouldn't impede your quest for knowledge and truth. Handwaving does not produce the weeks of intense research, nor the dozens of lines of code I've written. It also will not produce the open source code used to implement parts of this investigation. Handwaving cannot account for the AI that has been used to verify a match between Betty's map and the real world.

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: james1947

are you a thomas morrison sockpuppet account?
your claims and debating styles are very similar

Who the hell is Thomas Morrison?!? And, "debating styles"? You mean using real science and information?

well i do think barney hill saw something, his wife however was sadly not an example of sanity

You are aware, I hope, that One's sanity cannot affect Mathematics, nor Astronomy, right? Whether Betty was "sane" is not an issue here, the map she drew is the evidence/artifact that was investigated, not Betty, nor Barney.

Although, the fact that the map is indeed real, does go a very long way to validating the Hill's experience.

a reply to: james1947

Not what I was expecting as proof, other then an attempt of stars making mathematical symbols which is a bit esoteric.

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: Specimen

well i do think barney hill saw something, his wife however was sadly not an example of sanity

And back then being an interracial couple an not believing Jesus was considered insane.

a reply to: james1947

*deep sigh*

a reply to: james1947

Who the hell is Thomas Morrison?!? And, "debating styles"? You mean using real science and information?

a guy who just like you, likes to make fun of me everytime i bring up my theories

You are aware, I hope, that One's sanity cannot affect Mathematics, nor Astronomy, right? Whether Betty was "sane" is not an issue here, the map she drew is the evidence/artifact that was investigated, not Betty, nor Barney. Although, the fact that the map is indeed real, does go a very long way to validating the Hill's experience.

i already showed you how the maps are different, but you obvioulsy don't like arguments angaist your theory

a reply to: Specimen

no, i ain't saying in that sense, betty hill had various "UFO sightings" over the years, none wich were corroborated with her husband, she also thought her cat could fly and that she had UFO crash debris