Do Aliens really exist ????

King Mob · 07-11-2008 3:59pm

Kernel wrote: »

I have read the article, and I don't agree that it's logical to suggest that a complex organism (that has evolved as such) is as evolved as a simple organism such as an amoeba. It's illogical in the face of Darwin's theory of evolution that apes would not evolve further, as the whole concept of natural selection indicates that evolution is an ongoing process in which a species will change and adapt to suit their environment. The stronger mutations of the apes in terms of suitability to a changing environment would flourish more, and thus another step in evolution.

Humans are more complex but not more evolved than any other species. It is a misconception to believe we are higher on a ladder than other species simply because evolution isn't a singular ladder or path.
I didn't say apes wouldn't evolve further, I said they probably would become more human like or develop more human-like intelligence.

Kernel wrote: »

Those articles are one sided rubbish. Describing Stanton Friedman as a UFO loon... :rolleyes: Hardly balanced is it? The article on Roswell is terrible! Reiterating the official government story doesn't serve to dispell the evidence of a conspiracy.

And care to point out the logical flaws in either of those articles (and not the fact it doesn't automatically assume a government conspiracy)? Or have the evidence they say are lacking?

So then these ufo books you recommend are not "one sided rubbish"?

Kernel wrote: »

You've demonstrated a lack of knowledge on the subject.

How so?

Kernel wrote: »

Explain the UFO incident in which several ICBM's were disabled by a UFO as discussed a while back on Larry King Live:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Plzo0rECew

So have they any other evidence other than the testimony of ufo enthusiasts of an incident 30+ years ago?

And trust me Larry King isn't exactly known for his critical thinking.

DubTony · 07-11-2008 4:37pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I saw a UFO once when I was a kid, very cool, jusy zipped about in the sky for a bit and then disappeared really fast.

twould have been about 1993 over Wexford

Would that have been just after this happened?

from
http://www.ufoinfo.com/humanoid/humanoid1993.shtml

31.
Location. County Wexford, Ireland
Date: February 28 1993
Time: morning
A woman walking alone on a country road heard an odd sound coming from a nearby ditch at the edge of a field. She went over to look and there she saw a little woman about 2-foot tall with long red hair, she was trying to pick up a smooth stone which was wedged in the ditch. The woman was wearing a purple outfit and had what appeared to be two raven feathers on her head. The witness approached and could see that the little woman was struggling with the stone. The little woman suddenly noticed the witness and disappeared in plain sight.

shayser · 08-11-2008 9:06pm

These kids believed. For a few hours, anyway.

Or maybe longer?

http://www.harrowobserver.co.uk/west-london-news/local-harrow-news/2008/09/18/police-investigate-school-s-alien-invasion-116451-21847932/
http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/localnews/3829373.Aliens_land_in_Wyke_Regis/

Kernel · 09-11-2008 4:31am

King Mob wrote: »

So have they any other evidence other than the testimony of ufo enthusiasts of an incident 30+ years ago?

And trust me Larry King isn't exactly known for his critical thinking.

Bah! The standard rubbish argument of the skeptic. Someone interested in the UFO phenomenon is known as a UFO nut/enthusiast and therefore their testimony or research is worthless. No point in arguing with you people, you're entrenched firmly in your world view. If you want to know more, read the books. You're not in the slightest bit interested in any aspect of conspiracy theories or ufology apart from the narrow sighted agenda of debunking.

You would have been inexorably touting the swamp gas explanation a couple of decades ago.

Kernel · 09-11-2008 4:33am

shayser wrote: »

These kids believed. For a few hours, anyway.

Or maybe longer?

http://www.harrowobserver.co.uk/west-london-news/local-harrow-news/2008/09/18/police-investigate-school-s-alien-invasion-116451-21847932/
http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/localnews/3829373.Aliens_land_in_Wyke_Regis/

Ah, a light hearted story about the 'little green men'. I've never seen that thrown in at the end of a mainstream 'report' on the topic.... honest!

toiletduck · 09-11-2008 4:14pm

Kernel wrote: »

You would have been inexorably touting the swamp gas explanation a couple of decades ago.

Nothing wrong with seeking explanations for UFOs.

I think one of the major problems as I see it with the idea that we are being visited (a lot if you believe only a percentage of the reports!) is how come astronomers are never the ones to report them? I mean given the nature of their job/pasttime, they should be the most prolific witnesses but alas no. Is it because they're in on the conspiracy, that for some reason they haven't seen the ships or that they recognise "swamp gas"* illusions and are trained to do so?

*I'm using this to cover all related phenomena :pac:

King Mob · 09-11-2008 4:33pm

Kernel wrote: »

Bah! The standard rubbish argument of the skeptic. Someone interested in the UFO phenomenon is known as a UFO nut/enthusiast and therefore their testimony or research is worthless. No point in arguing with you people, you're entrenched firmly in your world view. If you want to know more, read the books. You're not in the slightest bit interested in any aspect of conspiracy theories or ufology apart from the narrow sighted agenda of debunking.

You would have been inexorably touting the swamp gas explanation a couple of decades ago.

So asking to back something up with evidence is standard rubbish?
Can I assume that you have no such evidence to back up their claims?

Anyone who has a vested interest in UFOs and are claiming they saw one are making very extraordinary claims (and claiming seeing one take out nukes are even more extraordinary). And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Simple testimony is not very extraordinary as it does not remove the possibility of deception, mistaken phenomenon, mental illness and many, many other factors that make it fairly worthless.

You have done little "to unentrench me me form my worldview."
I've heard lots of testimony and accusations of conspiracy, and not one stands up to critical inquiry.

DenMan · 09-11-2008 4:38pm

So say we are the only species in the Universe is incredibly arrogant imo. If life evolved here than why not elsewhere? In fact we are aliens ourselves as life here originated in space as minute micro-organisms from falling meteorites crashed here billions of years ago.

Kernel · 09-11-2008 5:07pm

King Mob wrote: »

Anyone who has a vested interest in UFOs and are claiming they saw one are making very extraordinary claims (and claiming seeing one take out nukes are even more extraordinary). And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Simple testimony is not very extraordinary as it does not remove the possibility of deception, mistaken phenomenon, mental illness and many, many other factors that make it fairly worthless.

Yeah, but I was simply probing you by putting up that piece, with the testimony of those involved, and video evidence. All of which you've dismissed with the standard ****e argument, which proves to me that you are here for the purposes of debate from your own entrenched viewpoint, and are unwilling to accept any evidence. Ergo, debating with you would be a waste of my time. I know it can be fun sometimes, debating, using logic to outdo your opponent etc. But that's not why I post here, and I haven't time to engage in it unless there is some chance of convincing that person by pointing to evidence. You don't even want to read up on this, so why waste my breath?

King Mob · 09-11-2008 5:27pm

Kernel wrote: »

Yeah, but I was simply probing you by putting up that piece, with the testimony of those involved, and video evidence. All of which you've dismissed with the standard ****e argument, which proves to me that you are here for the purposes of debate from your own entrenched viewpoint, and are unwilling to accept any evidence. Ergo, debating with you would be a waste of my time. I know it can be fun sometimes, debating, using logic to outdo your opponent etc. But that's not why I post here, and I haven't time to engage in it unless there is some chance of convincing that person by pointing to evidence. You don't even want to read up on this, so why waste my breath?

Actually that piece had no video evidence, the image of the ufo flying around the nuke was in fact an animated simulation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJoamChmrjo&feature=related

I didn't dismiss the testimony outright, I asked for it to be backed up with solid evidence which you apparently can't do.
Can you really blame me for not accepting far fetched unsupported testimony?
Tell me have you ever considered that maybe you are wrong?

Kernel · 09-11-2008 7:24pm

Yes, I have considered it. Have you? BTW - the youtube link you posted is not the same as the footage used on Larry King Live.

How about the Belgian UFO sighting, confirmed by radar and F16s?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=87gsDrWAdA0

The O'Hare UFO sighting? No evidence apart from witness testimony.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zymfy2dFcwg&feature=related

Phoenix lights (flares I suppose you'll say)?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GLUAhVkGmj0

Rendlesham? sure that was probably just a lighthouse and the lads were suffering mass delusions.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Te-rEW7upe0

Hell, just go to www.disclosureproject.org and debunk everything there. Or maybe start debunking quantum physics, not a lot of hard evidence for much of that either.

Kernel · 09-11-2008 7:31pm

To anybody not interested in reading books, but interested in videos, or interested in the subject; try checking out these:

Billion Dollar Secret:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3975546396136405829&ei=mysXScj-CKf62wLKjdxA&q=nick+cook

More Nick Cook:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-834605691449249469&hl=en

Out of the Blue:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5545276251937701731&ei=XSwXSe2uNabU2gLEhtDGDQ&q=out+of+the+blue&hl=en

Disclosure Project:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1166743665260900218&ei=PiwXSYqMDqbU2gLEhtDGDQ&q=disclosure+project&hl=en

King Mob · 09-11-2008 8:00pm

Kernel wrote: »

Yes, I have considered it. Have you?

Yes, but it'll take more than shakey evidence and bad logic to change my mind.

Kernel wrote: »

BTW - the youtube link you posted is not the same as the footage used on Larry King Live.

Looks very similar. Is it then the footage that was confiscated by the airforce?

Kernel wrote: »

How about the Belgian UFO sighting, confirmed by radar and F16s?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=87gsDrWAdA0

Dunno, not an expert on radar. What evidence is there that it's alien in nature?

Kernel wrote: »

The O'Hare UFO sighting? No evidence apart from witness testimony.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zymfy2dFcwg&feature=related

Because people never mistake anything they see in the sky?

Kernel wrote: »

Phoenix lights (flares I suppose you'll say)?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GLUAhVkGmj0

Maybe because they where? http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4041
What evidence shows they are not?

Kernel wrote: »

Rendlesham? sure that was probably just a lighthouse and the lads were suffering mass delusions.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Te-rEW7upe0

Dunno, wasn't there. But isn't a lighthouse and mass delusion a hell of a alot more likely than Aliens?

Kernel wrote: »

Hell, just go to www.disclosureproject.org and debunk everything there.

And debunk what exactly? That alot of people mistake and misunderstand stuff in the sky? That the airforce wasted alot of time documenting them? Or that armed forces have classified files? You need to be more specific.

Kernel wrote: »

Or maybe start debunking quantum physics, not a lot of hard evidence for much of that either.

You mean the tons of empirical, testable mathematical evidence and the years of empirical, testable experimental evidence? Or the years of research backed up by the experiments and math?

Are you suggesting Quantum Mechanics doesn't exist?

bonkey · 09-11-2008 8:06pm

Kernel wrote: »

Or maybe start debunking quantum physics, not a lot of hard evidence for much of that either.

Its a pity your knowledge of quantum physics isn't at the same level as your knowledge of various conspiracy theories.

Keith186 · 09-11-2008 8:11pm

I wouldn't believe in aliens unless I witnessed direct evidence myself.

Yes there's some evidence and accounts of UFO's flying about but lets be honest, if it was good proper evidence it would be worldwide headline news.

The fact that a good few wackos are usually involved doesn't help the Yes side.

Kernel · 09-11-2008 9:51pm

You pseudo-skeptics have a strange pathological similarity. I guess Copernicus thought the same when the skeptics went against him. (cue the logic, mathematics, empirical proof spiel).

Anyway, QED King Mob, you'd be a waste of my time to try to convince.

bonkey · 09-11-2008 10:10pm

Kernel wrote: »

You pseudo-skeptics have a strange pathological similarity. I guess Copernicus thought the same when the skeptics went against him. (cue the logic, mathematics, empirical proof spiel).

No spiel. I'll just point you at my sig.

King Mob · 09-11-2008 10:10pm

Kernel wrote: »

You pseudo-skeptics have a strange pathological similarity. I guess Copernicus thought the same when the skeptics went against him. (cue the logic, mathematics, empirical proof spiel).

You mean how Copernicus's theories were based on empirical observation then later backed up by empirical evidence and repeatable experiment? The things you fail to provide?

Kernel wrote: »

Anyway, QED King Mob, you'd be a waste of my time to try to convince.

Oh so you were trying to convince people who already had a firm belief in alien visitation and were unlike to critically evaluate your claims.
No wonder you weren't supplying decent evidence or using good logic.

Kernel · 09-11-2008 11:04pm

King Mob wrote: »

You mean how Copernicus's theories were based on empirical observation then later backed up by empirical evidence and repeatable experiment? The things you fail to provide?

You see how I can predict your robotic responses? You can't resist it.

King Mob wrote: »

Oh so you were trying to convince people who already had a firm belief in alien visitation and were unlike to critically evaluate your claims.
No wonder you weren't supplying decent evidence or using good logic.

I'm sharing information with those who are interested in it. You are not interested, so why not run along to the skeptics forum? Are you Diogenes? You remind me of him, but then, you're all so alike.

bonkey · 09-11-2008 11:16pm

Kernel wrote: »

You see how I can predict your robotic responses?

Its amazing. Its almost as though you knew the flaws in your own argument, yet somehow think that by saying "and look, someone will point them out" you'll distract people from it.

I'm sharing information with those who are interested in it.

Seems to me that this is what KM is doing as well.

Why is it that so many of you conspiracy-believing types get so aggrieved that people want to make sure that both sides of a story get heard?

King Mob · 09-11-2008 11:30pm

Kernel wrote: »

You see how I can predict your robotic responses? You can't resist it.

Right, so then Copernicus was right because his theories were ridiculous and baseless, and that he didn't need logic and science to prove them?
No wonder you think your theories make sense....

Kernel wrote: »

I'm sharing information with those who are interested in it. You are not interested, so why not run along to the skeptics forum? Are you Diogenes? You remind me of him, but then, you're all so alike.

Oh ok, so no dissenting views then either?
We shall all accept the truth about aliens without crictical thought and in spite of empirical evidence.

Of course, despite displaying a knowledge about many of the claims of ufos and many of the rational explantions as well as knowing how to apply scientific reasoning to claims of the extraordinary, I obviously have no interest (or knowledge) in the subject simply because I don't agree.
Way to spread the truth.

Kernel · 11-11-2008 9:41pm

King Mob wrote: »

Right, so then Copernicus was right because his theories were ridiculous and baseless, and that he didn't need logic and science to prove them?
No wonder you think your theories make sense....

Oh ok, so no dissenting views then either?
We shall all accept the truth about aliens without crictical thought and in spite of empirical evidence.

Of course, despite displaying a knowledge about many of the claims of ufos and many of the rational explantions as well as knowing how to apply scientific reasoning to claims of the extraordinary, I obviously have no interest (or knowledge) in the subject simply because I don't agree.
Way to spread the truth.

Another aspect to the pathological behaviour is that they always need to get the last word in. Weird isn't it folks?

humanji · 11-11-2008 10:17pm

Kernel wrote: »

Another aspect to the pathological behaviour is that they always need to get the last word in. Weird isn't it folks?

But then why did you feel the need to get the last word in?

Oh no, now I've got the last word in. Somebody please post after this!

oscarBravo · 11-11-2008 10:20pm

Always happy to oblige.

trentf · 11-11-2008 10:26pm

wheres eamonn dunphy when you need him..

Carra23 · 12-11-2008 2:07pm

Dave! wrote: »

I believe there's life on other planets.

I don't believe that alien life has ever reached earth, or that there is any conspiracy at all. I don't believe anybody has ever been abducted either.

Dave you should google Alex Collier Interview 1994 and watch it it might open your mind and make sure you have 2 hours free it goes on that long ! ! !:)

Trev M · 12-11-2008 2:27pm

Just because some one requires tangeable proof doesnt mean they are closed minded....The one thing that irritates me is this irrational assumtion that posting a You tube video is irrifutable proof of soemthing.:rolleyes:

Carra23 · 12-11-2008 3:58pm

Trev M wrote: »

Just because some one requires tangeable proof doesnt mean they are closed minded....The one thing that irritates me is this irrational assumtion that posting a You tube video is irrifutable proof of soemthing.:rolleyes:

1.No one mentioned youtube its not on youtube
2. I never said he had a closed mind I just said that watching the interview might open his mind to the possibility of aliens having visited earth
3. I never said that an internet video is proof of anything in fact I never even said that I beleive everything that is mentioned in the Alex Collier interview is true but its possible very possible how about you watch it n get back to me when you have

jonbravo · 09-12-2008 1:21am

hello everyone,ive seen the alex collier interview but also seen the steven greer stuff,whats the difference between the 2??im only new to this stuff!!just your own views on the two?.

thecommander · 09-12-2008 9:35am

Carra23 wrote: »

Dave you should google Alex Collier Interview 1994 and watch it it might open your mind and make sure you have 2 hours free it goes on that long ! ! !:)

I watched about 35 minutes of that last night. Its just some guy talking about aliens and their hierarchies etc. I thought it was going to be someone that was in the know, with evidence, photos etc to prove what he was talking about. He's very convinced this is real, but I cant see how this will open my mind? Might as well watch Close Encounters and then tell everyone its a documentary.

Do Aliens really exist ????

Comments