What evidence would work?

(shakes head) pad, you have resorted to being pathetic

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(shakes head)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How could you possibly know that? Have you examined all the evidence? When and on what website?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

he does not, nor any of them, this is my main point-- they are simply just ranting and raving about something they are actually clueless of, and are simply just attempting to ridicule you since they are pathetic and have nothing else better to do

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(shrugs), MR.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is very highly improbable that UFOs are in any way alien technology and less probable, it that is possible, that they contain aliens.

I assert this for three main reasons:

(1) There is no evidence, and a lot of room for doubt, that a society as advanced as ours (or greater) is stable on a time scale of 10,000 years. There are many ways it can self destruct, in addition to global nuclear war or continued increasing release of CO2. Some especially scary ones are in the growing capability to fabricate lethal biology - even in a basement. An air-born, infectious, respiratory virus, immune to all known anti-viral agents made by an embittered bit clever biologist, who wants all of humanity to die with him, is certainly a possible in the next few hundred years.

(2) With millions of stars more interesting, than our very ordinary and small sun, why would the aliens (or their robots) come to inspect this boring, common-place, little star with a million or more better choices, many much closer to them?

(3) Assuming that the speed of light is the maximum travel velocity and that the social stability of technically advanced technological societies is less than 100,000 years; then there is less than 50,000 years for the alien ship to get to Earth and send what it learned about Earth back home. I. e. combined with (2) there is no point in even visiting Earth. Further more, even if they will not self-destruct for 100,000 years, there is essentially zero chance that their 100,000 years will over lap with our 10,000 years.


Thus, very extraordinary evidence is required to claim UFOs have visited earth. No video of one hovering over the white house then zipping off at very high speed as an F-15 approached would persuade me. I know there are people skilled enough with photo shop, etc. to make a convincing video of two unicorns in battle, with their horns clashing. Hell multi-hour long movies are entirely computer made now.

 

Because most people believe that humanity would be irresistibly exciting to a proposed extraterrestrial. "Well, of COURSE they'd want to come see us! We're awesome!"

 

Have you met Humanity?

 

for whom though?-- for the public?--so in other words, if the public is not sure of the reality, then the reality must not exist?-- is this what your meanings are?

 

what the public does not grasp is simply that there are two worlds of science here. the real science and then the public's science, which has been occurring for decades.

 

Only one thing really: our hot soccer moms!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Conviction is a subjective matter.
I thus think it is reasonable for someone to say that there is no convincing evidence if they themselves are unconvinced by any evidence that they have come across.
Can they possibly say that there is no evidence anywhere that will ever convince them?
Unlikely.
But if you wish to say that there is convincing evidence to someone then please detail that evidence.
If the person is still unconvinced then, to them, it is not convincing evidence, even if it is to you.

 

What do you classify as "real science" and "public's science", just to get clarification of what you are suggesting, please?
I.e. Examples of each, please.

 

No one can ever examine all of the evidence of anything. We examine the evidence presented by the one making the claim (you). If there is compelling evidence, you must present it - we are under no obligation to go searching for it.

Since you are now making an issue about "all of the evidence" instead of the "compelling evidence" part, is that an admission that you have not posted any compelling evidence?

 

For anyone who holds functional standards for proof.

No, that doesn't make any sense.

I think what you are calling "public science" is more commonly called "popular science", which is real science dumbed down and popularized for public consumption via the media.

If you are just referring to the idea that people are entitled to decide for themselves what is true, regardless of what the scientific community thinks, that is true but limited by the law in some cases(if you believe you are safer without a seat belt, you may not be legally entitled to act on that belief). But if you want to be RIGHT, your best chance is to use a proven method for determining it, whether you are a scientist or not.

 

cute, you are pretending that you actually know. again you have the same stance as anyone else in this topic that is here simply, only, here to ridicule MR. again, you have no access and experience of such things. same thing i told billy yesterday: " for whom though?-- for the public?--so in other words, if the public is not sure of the reality, then the reality must not exist?-- is this what your meanings are? "
" Real science isn't looking at UFO's or pictures of UFO's on youtube or elsewhere to determine the existence of alien life forms, "-- that is simply because they already have it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(shrugs)
i also stated this yesterday: " " we do not have convincing evidence to validate any conjecture "

we might if the government's motive were for the betterment of mankind. the government's motive is control. and just as much as they crave control, they fear loss of control. knowledge is power, but power does not necessarily confer competence. the people at the top of these programs are intellectually very average. they are not capable of making proper use of what has been handed to them, but they have no intention in letting anyone else ever get a chance to solve the puzzle. and let's not forget there's also a real possibility that the government is being manipulated by the extraterrestrials for their own purposes. when you're dealing with beings whose intellect is so far beyond your own, i don't think it's safe to assume that they have your best interest at heart. use your own judgement. that's all any of us can do. there's been so much secrecy and disinformation over the last fifty years, that it has become impossible to prove anything in the face of official denial. of course the flip side is nobody really believes anything that the government says. the only vindication i can imagine would be if the government finally revealed all of what they know about these aliens.
other than that, again you all are pathetic for doing nothing but picking on MR and nothing more-- that is all that this is.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(shakes head)

 

real science-- government level that the public does not have access to(also ahead about 40 years)
public's science-- all the mainstream nonsense(that is stuck at a brick wall).

 

same thing i told billy yesterday: " for whom though?-- for the public?--so in other words, if the public is not sure of the reality, then the reality must not exist?-- is this what your meanings are? "

 

whom would that be?-- the public?

 

i am right-- again, i have access to all this--this is my career. and i seriously have no inkling of care if anyone believes me or not. i also do not care to provide anything that you all will ridicule. i simply stepped in these topics in order to stop all of you clueless mouth runners from continuing to pick on MR. i have been reading this shit for days. it is time for it to cease now.

 

Krash, do you have examples of real vs public science? It's all well and good you coming in to defend MR, but doing so with claims that you yourself are unable to support would really just be pouring fuel on the fire, is it not?
Whether the perceived picking on MR is acceptable or not should be no excuse for you failing to support your claims, right? If you wish people to stop, simply ask them to, report them, show them the errors of what they are doing. Just please don't make claims that you are perhaps unwilling to support.
Thanks.