Galactic Federation

Ostrom · 01-07-2009 12:37pm

Its the method of argument and convoluted logic I find most worrying.

Most of these claims are beyond reproach as the claimant places the onus upon the repondent to provide contrary evidence, without any baseline evidence of their own.

All the same, a trip to Ben Goldacre wouldn't go astray. Its a shame really, as I believe some of these ideas are well worth discussing in theory - as in exploring the possible conditions under which, based on current scientific knowledge and understanding, such phenomena may emerge.

There is nothing wrong with theoretical discussion, it is the sheer scale of baseless statement of assumed fact that is astounding.

toiletduck · 01-07-2009 1:58pm

espinolman wrote: »

Depends on who you are representing , is it the Draco Mothmen :

http://www.greatdreams.com/reptlan/reps.htm

You're really advocating a site which tells us

Between now and 2007 AD, our planet will have a 70 degree pole shift. Saudia Arabia will become the new North Pole. In the next 10 years, these are the changes we'll be witness to:

1. We will all become telepathic.

2. The Andromedan Council has ordered all extraterrestrial presences on the planet, in the planet, and on the moon to be completely out of our space. They want everything that's ET, benevolent or not, off the planet. This will be very interesting since there are over 1,833 reptilians living in our planet and over 18,000 grays living underground and on the moon. The council would like to see how we will live with each other when we are not being manipulated by ETs, as we have been for the last 5,723 years.

Really?

Mahatma coat · 01-07-2009 11:34pm

Eh Lads, rather than just decrying the 'Bad Science' how about ye provide your 'correct' versions. if something is so obviously wrong as ye claim trhen you should have no problem proving your point with reputable sources and solid reasoning.

.........when we are not being manipulated by ETs, as we have been for the last 5,723 years.

any particular reason for that Date????????????

6th · 01-07-2009 11:36pm

6th wrote: »

DTrotter wrote: »

I represent one of the galactic Overlords, if you want to help pm me and I'll send you my bank account. For a small donation you could be part of a galactic event in 2017 (provided the 2012 thing is bs).

You've had 3 infractions and 2 bans in the last month. Thats not a good sign. Heres another infraction and a month long ban.

Ban increased to permaban.

espinolman · 01-07-2009 11:48pm

nyarlothothep wrote: »

This bears a striking similarity to the Sheliak who appeared in TNG. They're leaders were also known as the corporate.

Ok star trek and star wars , you know i think they are based on real UFO incidents and stories based on real events , especialy star trek , with star wars i think it was a story around a robotic head they found on the moon (or was it mars), The Undiscovered Country star trek film , i have heard that this is based on something real to do with alien races .

I would wonder how much of them is really science-fiction !

Jazzy · 01-07-2009 11:56pm

and luckily for us they are still using word

PirateShampoo · 01-07-2009 11:56pm

espinolman wrote: »

Ok star trek and star wars , you know i think they are based on real UFO incidents and stories based on real events , especialy star trek , with star wars i think it was a story around a robotic head they found on the moon (or was it mars), The Undiscovered Country star trek film , i have heard that this is based on something real to do with alien races .

I would wonder how much of them is really science-fiction !

Oh my god man, can at least give 1 piece of solid evidence to the stuff ur say? And i don't mean a pdf file that someone has written or a you tube video of crazy colours and someone putting on a stupid voice.

Its a conspiracy forum where people present there evidence and give there theories.

You just seem to be making stuff up has you go along and present it as fact. Then challenge people to prove you wrong. They should give you ur own section titled "Away with the crazies".

Mahatma coat · 02-07-2009 12:11am

Espinolman, you really aint doin the movement any favours here, how about we split off into the CT In TV Shows thread and discuss the ramificatons of the Startrek/Starwars Angle.

you canty win a war by fighting on all fronts similtaneously you have to win one battle at a time, we can help you, but you need to display coherence.

espinolman · 02-07-2009 12:12am

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Its a conspiracy forum where people present there evidence and give there theories.

I did'nt state that last post as fact because i said 'i think' , so the last post is theoretical .

6th · 02-07-2009 12:15am

PirateShampoo wrote: »

They should give you ur own section titled "Away with the crazies".

And you should read the charter at the top of the forum. Infracted.

nyarlothothep · 02-07-2009 12:18am

espinolman wrote: »

Ok star trek and star wars , you know i think they are based on real UFO incidents and stories based on real events , especialy star trek , with star wars i think it was a story around a robotic head they found on the moon (or was it mars), The Undiscovered Country star trek film , i have heard that this is based on something real to do with alien races .

I would wonder how much of them is really science-fiction !

That could be true. I remember some scottish dude saying that rock music, everything in western culture has been manufactured by the NWO elitists. Someone here posted a link to a thread in which a prominent conspiracy theorist writer was exposed as a freemason and the responses he gave to the other posters were to put it mildly, bizarre. The level of agression he displayed was astounding. Anyway back on topic, can you back up this, and...TUC, which is a great film and by the same director as WOK, was based on, like many films during the late 80s, early 90s, including Rocky IV, the re-unification of germany and the end of the cold war.

Mahatma coat · 02-07-2009 12:21am

Nyarlo, you got a link to that???

Ostrom · 02-07-2009 12:24am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Eh Lads, rather than just decrying the 'Bad Science' how about ye provide your 'correct' versions. if something is so obviously wrong as ye claim trhen you should have no problem proving your point with reputable sources and solid reasoning

No, because it doesnt work that way

The onus is on the claimant to provide evidence in the first instance before any retort is possible.

What can I say? How can I possibly present a reasoned argument against such claims? Such logic is competely circular and baseless - the respondent will simply displace responsibility by focusing on the individual as opposed to the substance of the argument.

Let me repeat: there can be no response without demonstrable evidence to argue against. It is a simple convention of argument, though you will merely interpret this as another opt-out thus further displacing the subject.

Do you see where this is going.....

Ostrom · 02-07-2009 12:25am

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Its a conspiracy forum where people present there evidence and give there theories.

No evidence has been presented

nyarlothothep · 02-07-2009 12:51am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Nyarlo, you got a link to that???

Not presently, its going to be hard to find, I remember there being a link to the forum posted here around september or early october in some thread, I think, not sure. Following some links there were recorded radio shows, one of them is the scottish dude interview. It was on the Alex Jones show, it was interesting for the fact that this dude was basically saying that whoever it was that was exposed was a mason and that some famous theories were completely bogus and deliberately put out there, think it was relating to lizards and aliens.

Mahatma coat · 02-07-2009 12:58am

The 'Claimant' is not by Definition of tyhe Concept of the forum

Providing Evidence

the claimant is presenting a THEORY, these theories may be the original thoughts of the poster or theyt may be some random links found on the web.

The OP presents these THEORIES for our consideration and discussion.

If you see something that you disagree with then the onus IS on YOU to present your reasons for disagreement, not to simply decry it from position of 'intelectual superiority'

bonkey · 02-07-2009 8:25am

Lets not turn this into a discussion of how this forum works / should work, folks.

There is a thread for that but it ain't this one.

02-07-2009 4:21pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

- A massive object approaching the speed of light becomes longer in the direction of its travel. At the speed of light it would be infinitely long, faster than the speed of light it would be longer than infinitely long - impossible.

I'd just like to fix something that I've said. I don't know how I mixed it up (I only noticed reading back over it there).

The faster something travels, the shorter (more contracted) it becomes in the direction of its travel. At the speed of light, a massive object would be infinitely contracted in the direction of its travel (relative to another observer).

I don't know how I mixed that up, but this is just to clarify.

gpjordanf1 · 02-07-2009 5:45pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I'd just like to fix something that I've said. I don't know how I mixed it up (I only noticed reading back over it there).

The faster something travels, the shorter (more contracted) it becomes in the direction of its travel. At the speed of light, a massive object would be infinitely contracted in the direction of its travel (relative to another observer).

I don't know how I mixed that up, but this is just to clarify.

I thought no objects could move at the speed of light?

02-07-2009 5:52pm

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

I thought no objects could move at the speed of light?

You're right, they can't. Any massive object cannot travel at or faster than the speed of light.

If you read my original post, you'll see that I was stating the implications of an object moving very-near or at the speed of light (the at the speed of light part being impossible, but it does have theoretical implications nonetheless).

sub-x · 06-07-2009 3:40am

nyarlothothep wrote: »

That could be true. I remember some scottish dude saying that rock music, everything in western culture has been manufactured by the NWO elitists. Someone here posted a link to a thread in which a prominent conspiracy theorist writer was exposed as a freemason and the responses he gave to the other posters were to put it mildly, bizarre. The level of agression he displayed was astounding. Anyway back on topic, can you back up this, and...TUC, which is a great film and by the same director as WOK, was based on, like many films during the late 80s, early 90s, including Rocky IV, the re-unification of germany and the end of the cold war.

I don't know who the Scottish guy was but that sounds very like John Todd Collins who claimed that he was from 1 of the 13 family bloodlines of the Illuminati(as the surname Collins appears in the book with the same name),that among other things claimed that black magic spell were performed in the mixing stage of production on records :rolleyes:

To the OP,having a belief in something is not having the truth,this in my opinion is exactly the same way religion falls down for me,believing something is truth doesn't make it so unless you acn prove it without a shadow of a doubt,which as it stands you have not,this does not invalidate your own personal belief,but it is just a belief until you can put forward some sort of evidence to back up the claim.

On a side not this kinda reminds of the John Titor stuff,I tried to point out what I thought was going to be obvious but it was lost on so many people,Titor=Titter=Hee hee=the joke is on you

HouseHippo · 06-07-2009 7:01pm

Oh come on...come on..really like
Battle moon.....come on!

chamlis · 06-07-2009 8:51pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

You're right, they can't. Any massive object cannot travel at or faster than the speed of light.

If you read my original post, you'll see that I was stating the implications of an object moving very-near or at the speed of light (the at the speed of light part being impossible, but it does have theoretical implications nonetheless).

Hey JammyDodger,
When you refer to objects being massive, just to clarify, are you are saying "anything that has mass" rather than "something huuuuge"?

Like when people talk about "super massive black holes" etc, it's the mass of the thing, not it's "size" as such - they can be relatively small.

I'm just a numpty when it comes to differentiating between size and mass. Hate it. Always get mixed up.

Thanks.

nyarlothothep · 06-07-2009 9:22pm

sub-x wrote: »

I don't know who the Scottish guy was but that sounds very like John Todd Collins who claimed that he was from 1 of the 13 family bloodlines of the Illuminati(as the surname Collins appears in the book with the same name),that among other things claimed that black magic spell were performed in the mixing stage of production on records :rolleyes:

To the OP,having a belief in something is not having the truth,this in my opinion is exactly the same way religion falls down for me,believing something is truth doesn't make it so unless you acn prove it without a shadow of a doubt,which as it stands you have not,this does not invalidate your own personal belief,but it is just a belief until you can put forward some sort of evidence to back up the claim.

On a side not this kinda reminds of the John Titor stuff,I tried to point out what I thought was going to be obvious but it was lost on so many people,Titor=Titter=Hee hee=the joke is on you

No, its not John Todd. Reading the posts of this guy who was exposed was interesting, he was like a viper, there was no rationality in his responses, it was just pure irrational rage. I think this guy had his own website and forums, had sold a few books.

07-07-2009 6:20pm

chamlis wrote: »

Hey JammyDodger,
When you refer to objects being massive, just to clarify, are you are saying "anything that has mass" rather than "something huuuuge"?

Like when people talk about "super massive black holes" etc, it's the mass of the thing, not it's "size" as such - they can be relatively small.

I'm just a numpty when it comes to differentiating between size and mass. Hate it. Always get mixed up.

Thanks.

Sorry, I should have differentiated between the two meanings when I was explaining it. When I say massive (in this context) I just mean that it has mass. It doesn't necessarily have to be large (in its size or in the amount of matter it contains).

chamlis · 07-07-2009 9:15pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Sorry, I should have differentiated between the two meanings when I was explaining it. When I say massive (in this context) I just mean that it has mass. It doesn't necessarily have to be large (in its size or in the amount of matter it contains).

That's what I thought, good man. Thanks.
Yeah I've the same problem with the difference between "speed" and "velocity".
I know what they are, I just always mix them up :rolleyes:

Galactic Federation

Comments