Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Do Aliens really exist ????
Options
Comments
-
Smudgeyboy wrote: »Im pretty sure he doesnt know if they do or not.
Maybe we can do the same? Who knows?
I got into this subject through a search through the history of religions in a search for knowledge, what I discovered is that Shamanism, the spiritual use of plants is the basis for all modern religions 'the tree of knowledge'.
The interesting thing is, Shamans say they meet their teachers in other dimensions, and as far as I can tell, the top Freemasons use the same plants. Hidden knowledge? Shaman's knowledge of DNA is now being backed up by our western scientists.
Check it out! The book is called The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins
of Knowledge. You may also find it interesting to learn about the amount of Shaman tribes the American government have massacared.
So no actual evidence of other dimensions or aliens then? Just your biased interpretations of poorly researched history and images that "kinda sorta look like this."?0 -
How am I bias exactly? How poor is my research compared to yours with your lack of arguement to anything?So no actual evidence of other dimensions or aliens then? Just your biased interpretations of poorly researched history and images that "kinda sorta look like this."?
You have done no research, though you have proven with your assumptions that any you do will be bias.
Im just a guy trying to figure out the world!
Why do we worship anything? Is there anything to be worshipped? What did Jesus/Muhammed/Shiva anybody have to say?
This is going off topic, I was trying to suggest you do your own research King Mob, with an open (but logical) mind.0 -
Bised in that you started with the conclusion (shamanism rocks!) then cherry picked any "evidence" that fitted your conclusion disregarding everything that did not as a freemason conspiracy. But perhaps you can show some hard evidence that shamans knew about DNA and it's function?Smudgeyboy wrote: »How am I bias exactly? How poor is my research compared to yours with your lack of arguement to anything?
You have done no research, though you have proven with your assumptions that any you do will be bias.
Im just a guy trying to figure out the world!
Why do we worship anything? Is there anything to be worshipped? What did Jesus/Muhammed/Shiva anybody have to say?
This is going off topic, I was trying to suggest you do your own research King Mob, with an open (but logical) mind.
How exactly does worshiping things prove there's parallel dimensions?0 -
Bised in that you started with the conclusion (shamanism rocks!) then cherry picked any "evidence" that fitted your conclusion disregarding everything that did not as a freemason conspiracy. But perhaps you can show some hard evidence that shamans knew about DNA and it's function?
How exactly does worshiping things prove there's parallel dimensions?
Oh god, don't get him started on shamanism. There was a thread here a while ago about it. Any post on this forum he seems to reply back with shamanistic references. Afterall the shamans knew everything about everything right?
Here's the thread, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055391360&highlight=shaman
Basically his arguement was that some shaman went on a drug trip and pictured intertwining snakes. Then somehow came to the conclusion they must have known about the shape and function of DNA.
Pure crap.
Back on topic, I believe alien life exists. Not the crap spouted by some redneck with a piss poor picture of a UFO but rather small simple organisms eg bacteria.
Out of the endless planets out there, another one must support some form of life. May not be intelligent life but it's still life.0 -
Oh god, don't get him started on shamanism. There was a thread here a while ago about it. Any post on this forum he seems to reply back with shamanistic references. Afterall the shamans knew everything about everything right?
Here's the thread, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055391360&highlight=shaman
Basically his arguement was that some shaman went on a drug trip and pictured intertwining snakes. Then somehow came to the conclusion they must have known about the shape and function of DNA.
Pure crap.
Back on topic, I believe alien life exists. Not the crap spouted by some redneck with a piss poor picture of a UFO but rather small simple organisms eg bacteria.
Out of the endless planets out there, another one must support some form of life. May not be intelligent life but it's still life.
'We dont know what he's talking about, discredit the suggestions, throw rocks, booo!'
You guys dont even know your own heritage.0 -
Advertisement
-
Smudgeyboy wrote: »'We dont know what he's talking about, discredit the suggestions, throw rocks, booo!'
We simply as for proof of what your talking about. After all, you barely know what your talking about. The DNA/shaman angle is what I'm refering to.
Shamanism isn't the answer to all lifes questions despite how much you want it to be
Care to tell us then? Oh, without refering to the writings of some drugged up shaman elder. I really don't think you can do it.You guys dont even know your own heritage.
No point dwelling on our past heritage. It would make more sense to live in the present and plan for the future.0 -
Because ancedotal evidence is always right! People never lie or be crazy or stupid and certainly people are never mistaken about what they see in the night sky.
I'm sure you haven't read up on the whole phenomenon... Eyewitness evidence is not always correct, but there are many reports from credible witnesses. Rendlesham forest? How about the book by John Mack, Harvard professor of psychiatry - "Abduction"? He has conducted extensive research into alien abduction and was convinced it is real.You mean the leap in propulsion due to the jet engine and hybrid fuel and multistage rockets? Because it would have too impossible for human to design anything.
No, I'm speaking of the massive leap from those methods of propulsion to the methods of propulsion displayed by these UFO's. Anti-gravity propulsion, or at the very least electrostatic lift. Read "the Hunt for Zero Point" by Nick Cook.And what evidence from the roswell conspiracy? The US was monitoring Russian nuke tests or that civilian can't identify a crashed hi-altitude balloon?
hehe.. you might start by reading Stanton Friedman's book on Roswell. Or maybe Phil J. Corso's book "The Day After Roswell". Hell, even watch the Roswell movie and you'd be able to demonstrate more knowledge on the subject.Complete speculation! Most species on earth do not use light detecting sense organs.
Really? Even starfish and jellyfish have light sensing organs.. can you link me something that breaks the % of species with light sensing organs vs. % without?0 -
Tony Broke wrote: »
So you believe in some sort of cover up in tech?
Undoubtedly. I don't believe it, I'm 100% certain of it. The huge amount of black silent triangles appearing all over the world are terrestrial in origin in my opinion. Check out some of the Nick Cook documentaries online, or buy his book as I mentioned.Tony Broke wrote: »But do you then believe that that the US or who ever has any possibility of shooting down a UFO Craft that moves at the speed of light? Usually, all known footage of UFOs show a craft dissapear within our eyes and we hear all these stories of fighter pilots been told to engage on them.Why?
US pilots have died trying to engage UFO's. I'm not sure that there is an order to shoot them down - in fact I would disagree with this, however, if such a policy were in place then it could simply be explained as black ops project to which the USAF are not aware of. In the early days of these craft (when there was a policy of engagement) during the cold war, an unidentified blip appeared on a radar, and was verified visually. In this situation, if I was in charge of an airbase then I would order an engagement because there is a violation of airspace.0 -
All bacteria don't have light sensing organs and the number of bacterial species is so large that it can't even be accurately estimated. More than any other phylum or genus on the planet. Is that enough to convince you or will it take more irrational logic to do the job?Really? Even starfish and jellyfish have light sensing organs.. can you link me something that breaks the % of species with light sensing organs vs. % without?Undoubtedly. I don't believe it, I'm 100% certain of it. The huge amount of black silent triangles appearing all over the world are terrestrial in origin in my opinion. Check out some of the Nick Cook documentaries online, or buy his book as I mentioned.
Why is it when ever a conspiracy theoriest is questioned on prove they always tell you to read X's or Y's book?
These books are created to satify your theories with pure bull**** logic. They have their target audience (guillible fools) and sucessfully market their product.
Their books should not be taken as the bible. Hell the bible has more fact in it than some of these books.US pilots have died trying to engage UFO's
Proof please.if I was in charge of an airbase
Thank god this will never happen. All the resources would be wasted on chasing UFO's and trying to steal their anti-gravity propulsion system.0 -
All bacteria don't have light sensing organs and the number of bacterial species is so large that it can't even be accurately estimated. More than any other phylum or genus on the planet. Is that enough to convince you or will it take more irrational logic to do the job?
Right. So you're suggesting that bacteria are the aliens flying the advanced propulsion systems as speculated by the poster I replied to? :rolleyes:Why is it when ever a conspiracy theoriest is questioned on prove they always tell you to read X's or Y's book?
Because books contain knowledge and information maybe? Read the books before you launch into your tirade please. When you are informed on the books, then we can debate on them.Proof please.
Again, I'd suggest researching a little into the subject, but try this one for a starter.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc180.htm
People shouldn't rubbish things they know little about, unless they are trolling of course.0 -
Advertisement
-
No you said most life on Earth sensed light. This isn't true.Right. So you're suggesting that bacteria are the aliens flying the advanced propulsion systems as speculated by the poster I replied to? :rolleyes:
Books can also contain bad evidence and faulty logic, which you are reproducing here. You certainly don't need to read a book on UFOs to know how to identify logical fallacies though those books tend to be good practice.Because books contain knowledge and information maybe? Read the books before you launch into your tirade please. When you are informed on the books, then we can debate on them.0 -
Right. So you're suggesting that bacteria are the aliens flying the advanced propulsion systems as speculated by the poster I replied to? :rolleyes:
Sigh* Typical conspiracy theorist bull**** and missinterpretation. You asked for a ratio of species with to without light sensing organs. You tried to be smart and suggest the number with light sensing organs outweighted the without light sensing organs. I simply corrected you.
You then jumped to the rediculous conclusion that i think bacteria fly UFO's.
You see the fault in your logic?Because books contain knowledge and information maybe? Read the books before you launch into your tirade please. When you are informed on the books, then we can debate on them.
As I said, they have there target audience, suceptible fools, and they exploit that market. They write what you want to read, not what is true.Again, I'd suggest researching a little into the subject, but try this one for a starter.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc180.htm
People shouldn't rubbish things they know little about, unless they are trolling of course.
Troll? I assure you I'm not, now stick to the facts at hand. Misdirection is an all to common trait used around here. Don't dismiss me as a troll because i don't buy the bull**** you obviously do.0 -
Sigh* Typical conspiracy theorist bull**** and missinterpretation. You asked for a ratio of species with to without light sensing organs. You tried to be smart and suggest the number with light sensing organs outweighted the without light sensing organs. I simply corrected you.
You then jumped to the rediculous conclusion that i think bacteria fly UFO's.
You see the fault in your logic?
I said most creatures. I was obviously referring to evolved creatures, not backteria, viruses, germs etc. as the context of the discussion was on alien visitation. Such visitation could only come from advanced evolved life forms.As I said, they have there target audience, suceptible fools, and they exploit that market. They write what you want to read, not what is true.
There's no point debating on this, since you haven't read the books and are unprepared to do so. Dismissing their content without even bothering to read them shows ignorance. You've not read up on the topic which you are ignorantly ridiculing. It reflects badly on you tbh.Troll? I assure you I'm not, now stick to the facts at hand. Misdirection is an all to common trait used around here. Don't dismiss me as a troll because i don't buy the bull**** you obviously do.
Prove to me it's bull****. Hell, read up slightly on the topic before you even attempt to debunk it. :rolleyes:0 -
Books can also contain bad evidence and faulty logic, which you are reproducing here. You certainly don't need to read a book on UFOs to know how to identify logical fallacies though those books tend to be good practice.
Have you read the books I mentioned? If so, where are the flaws? Typical pseudo-skeptics conveniently ignoring many points from my post. Is Prof. John Mack's logic flawed?0 -
Have you read the books I mentioned? If so, where are the flaws? Typical pseudo-skeptics conveniently ignoring many points from my post. Is Prof. John Mack's logic flawed?
I haven't read it nor am i likely to read it. Just as you are unlikely to read any books on skepticism.
I don't know for certain if John Mack's logic is flawed I haven't read his work. However if your logic is anything like his I'd be betting no it being flawed.
To address your points: there is no reason what so ever to believe that any life in the universe has light sensing organs. Contrary to what you stated most species on Earth do not have light sensing organs and that it is infact a fallacy to assume that "advanced" organisms would need them. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIB2Notladders.shtml
And as a side note, you're the claimant, the burden of proof is yours. You have to prove it's not bull****.0 -
There's no point debating on this, since you haven't read the books and are unprepared to do so. Dismissing their content without even bothering to read them shows ignorance. You've not read up on the topic which you are ignorantly ridiculing. It reflects badly on you tbh.
I have no intent to read fiction and then accept it as fact. You clearly have no problem with it so enjoy your delusion.
It's your theory, you prove to me its not just that. The idea of a theory is to go through the evidence to prove it. Otherwise it still remains a theory. So you can throw all your novels and redneck sightings out the window. The fact remains it's your theory, you prove it. Don't ask me for proof against it.Prove to me it's bull****. Hell, read up slightly on the topic before you even attempt to debunk it. :rolleyes:
And by proof, i mean repetitive evidence that can be repeated by independant groups. Not just one person and their story.0 -
I have no intent to read fiction and then accept it as fact. You clearly have no problem with it so enjoy your delusion.
The books I have mentioned are all either from primary sources (research carried out by Mack for example) or are referencing secondary sources which you can check. You're ignorant if you simply dismiss these books without even bothering to read them or check them out.It's your theory, you prove to me its not just that. The idea of a theory is to go through the evidence to prove it. Otherwise it still remains a theory. So you can throw all your novels and redneck sightings out the window. The fact remains it's your theory, you prove it. Don't ask me for proof against it.
I couldn't be arsed trying to prove anything to someone who is too lazy to even read up on the subject. Better things to do with my time I'm afraid. I've given people on the forums some ways to enlighten themselves on the subject, in that way I'm contributing to this forum. Are you? If I was to be pedantic, I would suggest that your theory is that the books are bull****, therefore the burden of proof falls on you to prove that statement.And by proof, i mean repetitive evidence that can be repeated by independant groups. Not just one person and their story.
That may be difficult seeing as Corso's book was his own testimony and he is dead now. Prof. Mack is also dead, but his scientific studies remain presented as they are (although you wont bother to read them...).
Didn't bother reply to you King Mob, as your points are essentially the same, and as such, so is my reply. The light sensing organs point you have latched onto disregards my earlier point about obviously referring to evolved creatures, since germs, bacteria and microbes would be unlikely pilots of interstellar craft.0 -
The books I have mentioned are all either from primary sources (research carried out by Mack for example) or are referencing secondary sources which you can check. You're ignorant if you simply dismiss these books without even bothering to read them or check them out.
Again, books of fiction. Care to link me to the first research paper published by Mack? Has his work been repeated?
The proof for my statement is really obvious. It's the fact that the theory remains exactly that. If I was wrong it would be considered fact and not a theory. The onus is on you to convince me, with scientific proof, that these UFO's exist. Not the ramblings of untrustworthy people who claim to have seen them. Also, don't start reference novels. Again, they are written by people looking to make cash, not solve the mysteries.I couldn't be arsed trying to prove anything to someone who is too lazy to even read up on the subject. Better things to do with my time I'm afraid. I've given people on the forums some ways to enlighten themselves on the subject, in that way I'm contributing to this forum. Are you? If I was to be pedantic, I would suggest that your theory is that the books are bull****, therefore the burden of proof falls on you to prove that statement.
As i said, has his work been repeated by independent groups and if so, have the results stayed the same? Otherwise its all crap.That may be difficult seeing as Corso's book was his own testimony and he is dead now. Prof. Mack is also dead, but his scientific studies remain presented as they are (although you wont bother to read them...).0 -
Out of interest what skeptical books have you read?The books I have mentioned are all either from primary sources (research carried out by Mack for example) or are referencing secondary sources which you can check. You're ignorant if you simply dismiss these books without even bothering to read them or check them out.
Yes, but contrary to what you had said most life on earth does not have eyes. Also there are no "more evolved and less evolved" species. All species do not follow the same path, bacteria will not necessarily evolve eyes because the "more evolved" animals have them.Didn't bother reply to you King Mob, as your points are essentially the same, and as such, so is my reply. The light sensing organs point you have latched onto disregards my earlier point about obviously referring to evolved creatures, since germs, bacteria and microbes would be unlikely pilots of interstellar craft.
Thus there is no reason to assume that aliens have eyes.0 -
Again, books of fiction. Care to link me to the first research paper published by Mack? Has his work been repeated?
Get in touch with these people if you want to read Mack's papers.
http://www.johnemackinstitute.org/center/center_news.asp?id=259Not the ramblings of untrustworthy people who claim to have seen them. Also, don't start reference novels. Again, they are written by people looking to make cash, not solve the mysteries.
Your claims are getting worse. First of all, how you can suggest that a Harvard professor and a US Army Colonel are untrustworthy I do not comprehend. Secondly, you're making a huge assumption that these people are only interested in making money rather than solving the mysteries. Can you back up that claim? No, you can't. Yet I'm constantly asked for basic proofs. A huge number of people have witnessed UFO's. The Drake equation and mainstream science now accepts that highly evolved life forms (no, not bacteria or germs.....) exist throughout the universe.king mob wrote:Out of interest what skeptical books have you read?
In which field? Richard Dawkins? Derren Brown? Martin Reese? How about J. Allen Hynek? Oh wait, he was a skeptic until he saw sense.king mob wrote:Yes, but contrary to what you had said most life on earth does not have eyes. Also there are no "more evolved and less evolved" species. All species do not follow the same path, bacteria will not necessarily evolve eyes because the "more evolved" animals have them.
Thus there is no reason to assume that aliens have eyes.
Look, I'm not going to say this again, maybe this time you will get it: I said most creatures on earth have light sensing organs. In the context of evolved creatures who would be capable of visiting the earth. Not bacteria, not simple organisms. And yes, there are more evolved species. There are species which have evolved adequately to their environment, sure. But there are also species which have evolved into more advanced organisms, like humans. Who are capable of higher reasoning.
It's obvious to me and others that you two haven't a notion of the subject. I'd read up on it more before further exposing yourselves. I tried to be helpful and point you in the right direction, but you'd rather bicker here than gain more knowledge. So what's left for me to do? The day will come when mankind will know the truth, and on that day you will feel foolish.0 -
Advertisement
-
No it doesn't. The drake equation is nowhere near solved by the way, at least half of the variables are still unknown. The is no evidence of any intelligent life in the universe. A claim like that needs a bit more evidence than unverifiable eyewitness reports.A huge number of people have witnessed UFO's. The Drake equation and mainstream science now accepts that highly evolved life forms (no, not bacteria or germs.....) exist throughout the universe.
So using logic and reason to evaluate claims in non-nonsensical?In which field? Richard Dawkins? Derren Brown? Martin Reese? How about J. Allen Hynek? Oh wait, he was a skeptic until he saw sense.
Any books critical of ufo research?
One animal isn't "more evolved" than another, perhaps more complicated but not more evolved.Look, I'm not going to say this again, maybe this time you will get it: I said most creatures on earth have light sensing organs. In the context of evolved creatures who would be capable of visiting the earth. Not bacteria, not simple organisms. And yes, there are more evolved species. There are species which have evolved adequately to their environment, sure. But there are also species which have evolved into more advanced organisms, like humans. Who are capable of higher reasoning.
How is that you can speculate on an organism you have never examined let alone even know exists?
"I'll show them all HAHAHA <thunderclap>"It's obvious to me and others that you two haven't a notion of the subject. I'd read up on it more before further exposing yourselves. I tried to be helpful and point you in the right direction, but you'd rather bicker here than gain more knowledge. So what's left for me to do? The day will come when mankind will know the truth, and on that day you will feel foolish.
I don't see how we need to read a book on ufo to identify poor logic and bad evidence.0 -
One animal isn't "more evolved" than another, perhaps more complicated but not more evolved.
Nonsense. More complicated organisms have evolved more by definition.I don't see how we need to read a book on ufo to identify poor logic and bad evidence.
Fine, continue to talk crap about the books you don't know about then, I suppose it's amusing in a way... :rolleyes:0 -
Actually it's not http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.htmlNonsense. More complicated organisms have evolved more by definition.Fine, continue to talk crap about the books you don't know about then, I suppose it's amusing in a way... :rolleyes:
Ok then, why not present the best most logic evidence in these books?0 -
"Mainstream science" accepts no such thing. Individual scientists may accept it, but if they are both competent and honest they would admit to it being acceptance based on personal belief, rather than on science.The Drake equation and mainstream science now accepts that highly evolved life forms (no, not bacteria or germs.....) exist throughout the universe.
The Drake equation attempts to calculate the odds that civilisations may exist close enough for us to have contact with. The likelihood of it being so is dependant on a number of parameters for which we have nothing but speculative values.
The Drake Equation, incidentally, is non-testable. This is why it remains an equation (which it obviously is) rather than theory, postulate, or somsuch. It is, therefore, non-scientific in nature.
What you call bickering, I'd call critiquing the argument you presented here.It's obvious to me and others that you two haven't a notion of the subject. I'd read up on it more before further exposing yourselves. I tried to be helpful and point you in the right direction, but you'd rather bicker here than gain more knowledge.
Present a better argument?So what's left for me to do?
By asserting surity on such an issue, I would argue that you may have beaten him to the foolishness post there.The day will come when mankind will know the truth, and on that day you will feel foolish.0 -
-
Actually it's not http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html
Do you think an amoeba is as evolved an organism as a human?Ok then, why not present the best most logic evidence in these books?
Because it would take me days/weeks to research through the books, identify and disseminate the relevent data and present it as a huge post. I've considered it and I don't have enough time to do this huge topic justice. You want me to cover UFO sightings throughout history, close encounters, evolutionary theory, physics, alien abduction and the Roswell conspiracy in one post??? If you want the information then I've pointed you to the books. Read them if it's something you want to know more about.0 -
Modern ones, yes, they are as evolved as every other modern species. There is no hierarchy or ladder of evolution. Humans are certainly not the pinnacle of evolution. Apes (or any other animal) will probably not evolve to become more human like. And the is no evidence that human-like intelligence is the end product of evolution.Do you think an amoeba is as evolved an organism as a human?
This is kinda explained in the article I linked and in a few others on that site.
Or did you even read it?Because it would take me days/weeks to research through the books, identify and disseminate the relevent data and present it as a huge post. I've considered it and I don't have enough time to do this huge topic justice. You want me to cover UFO sightings throughout history, close encounters, evolutionary theory, physics, alien abduction and the Roswell conspiracy in one post??? If you want the information then I've pointed you to the books. Read them if it's something you want to know more about.
Well the thing is these claims have been going around for a while and have been covered by many skeptics.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4124
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4079
And i have read many articles on the web about these subjects. So to suggest I know nothing about the subject is disingenuous.
But perhaps you can supply, from these books, one piece of solid verifiable evidence, that has been scientifically evaluated to remove the possibility of fraud, incompetence, psychological factors, bad reporting and interference of someones personal belief on the evidence?
And can you point out in the links I provided the flaw in the logic, reasoning or evidence that shows that "aliens" are a more logical conclusion?
And please don't accuse anyone of being in a conspiracy unless you have solid proof.0 -
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 Wexford0 -
Modern ones, yes, they are as evolved as every other modern species. There is no hierarchy or ladder of evolution. Humans are certainly not the pinnacle of evolution. Apes (or any other animal) will probably not evolve to become more human like. And the is no evidence that human-like intelligence is the end product of evolution.
This is kinda explained in the article I linked and in a few others on that site.
Or did you even read it?
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.Well the thing is these claims have been going around for a while and have been covered by many skeptics.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4124
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4079
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 i have read many articles on the web about these subjects. So to suggest I know nothing about the subject is disingenuous.
You've demonstrated a lack of knowledge on the subject.But perhaps you can supply, from these books, one piece of solid verifiable evidence, that has been scientifically evaluated to remove the possibility of fraud, incompetence, psychological factors, bad reporting and interference of someones personal belief on the evidence?
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=6Plzo0rECew0 -
Advertisement
-
do aliens exist? this whole question is dated. aliens do exist and they aren't aliens at all really...0
Advertisement