In defence of space aliens

Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by Magical Realist, Oct 10, 2017.

  1. foghorn Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    817
    ''They can however invade our abode(s)'' ..
    Are you saying below not just ''our abodes'', but also our heads?...

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    It's my synthesis, not a dogmatic 'this is how it is', that whoever these entities are, they have the power to, subject to some limitations imposed by presumed rules/guidlines, invade some hapless individuals minds. Hence many apparently 'genuine' accounts of 'past lives' often 'confirmed' by unerringly accurate details the 'recaller' could not have known by normal means. The hard residue of cases unaccounted for by fraud or chance. Implanted memories.
    Cases of (demonic)possession are a different sub-set best left out here. Even some UFO encounters, according to Jacques Vallee, are best explained as implanted experiences, given that only a subset of observers could 'see' an otherwise highly intrusive event.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,778
    At this stage of my ufo journey, I remain blissfully agnostic as to the identity of ufos. It IS possible afterall to believe something is without knowing exactly what it is. I WILL say that I believe they are otherworldly in nature, excluding all natural, manmade, or mundane explanations.

    Your whole methodology smacks of skeptical bias. Your "analysis" of particular ufo accounts consists of a hodgepodge of mundane speculations, radar glitches, false memories, anecdotal errors and embellishments over the years. It looks to me like you're playing the role of a sleazy defense attorney whose sole aim is to create reasonable doubt. No conclusion is ever reached in terms of what exactly the ufo is. You're just as in the dark about them as we are. Don't pretend your so called "critical thinking" accomplishes something it isn't really accomplishing.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2021
    Q-reeus likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,778
    It is better to believe and possibly be mistaken than to always disbelieve and never be mistaken.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2021
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,778
    Most evidence for all the events and experiences of our lives is also anecdotal. That there is no solid evidence for them doesn't then become an excuse to dismiss them. That someone has experienced something powerful and unusual firsthand is a "good faith" truth standard we apply everywhere in our daily lives. It is real and compelling and powerful. There's something to be said for the raw eyewitness ufo account, undistorted with assumptions about what ufos are and what they aren't.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2021
  9. foghorn Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    817
    If someone saw a ufo and goes on the web to read up on other sightings, they find people like Magical Realist telling them what ufos are.

    ******************** *********************
    You MR are what I would call a web ''influencer'' and are telling people what their ''seeing''.
    In no way are you neutral / unbias when it comes to ufos.
     
  10. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,778
    Anyone who has the patience, if not desperation, to read thru this entire thread more than likely have their own preconceptions about what ufos are. They don't need my help.
     
  11. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,942
    I think that many people enjoy the mystery behind not being able to prove something with objective evidence, but believing it just the same.

    When it comes to UFO's like the tic tac video, when does the science community take eye witness ''testimonies'' as valid? I mean, if something like that happens only once...but a few intelligent, critical thinkers manage to capture it on film, how can it ever be ''proven?''

    At this point, I feel we're on a carousel with this thread, because I'm sure I've asked that question before in so many words, and you have replied. lol But, as we dig deeper, is the answer that eye witness testimonies never suffice as proof? Why do we allow eye witnesses to take the stand in criminal trials, then? Sometimes, those witnesses are what an entire legal case is built on.
     
    Yazata, Q-reeus and Magical Realist like this.
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,196
    And there is absolutely nothing wrong with believing things. People only get into trouble when they demand other people believe the same things as them.

    They're valid, they're just not compelling without physical corroboration.

    It can't. Not like that.

    'Proven' means irrefutable. i.e. "Here, examine this actual flying saucer that landed here."


    Because there is no doubt that murders actually exist. There is plenty of precedent.
    Not to mention that there are physical, irrefutable facts as to that murder that can be examined at leisure (namely, the remains). It's not just "Trust me, I saw what I saw."

    In fact, it is a very rare event when a person is found guilty without a body ("no body, no crime").

    And that's a better equivalent of a UFO: without a body, who's to say there was even a murder at all?
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2021
  13. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,942
    Yet, many cases result in convictions by way of circumstantial evidence, which requires somewhat of a leap, but you make a good point that we don't know for sure that alien life exists at all, let alone a fleet of them flying in spacecrafts.

    But, I think where this might fit with UFO sightings (alleging the alien kind), is that there is a difference between arriving at a crime scene and interviewing random ''eye witnesses'' who might be falsely stating information to get their 15 minutes of fame (many UFO enthusiasts are in it for just that) and cross examining eye witnesses during a trial in a courtroom...to see if their statements actually are true.

    I think that could be what many UFO enthusiasts want more than anything, is for some of the sightings to be ''cross examined'' by the science community a little more rigorously, so to speak.
     
  14. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Long done by the very few brave/honest/independently-minded scientists prepared to weather oppressive official-government/military/peer censure/pressure/public-ridicule.
    The normal and intended result being caving-in via self-censorship and eventually rationalizing that as 'correct thinking'.
    https://www.topsecretwriters.com/2020/11/when-j-allen-hynek-had-a-change-of-heart-about-ufos/
    https://www.thinkanomalous.com/jacques-vallee.html (Your anti-malware app may, like mine does, flag the site as 'dangerous'. Just ignore such masked ideologically motivated censorship.)
    I could add Stanton Friedman to the list but hesitate as he was fixated on Roswell which I think was a sad mistake.

    Beyond that understandably tiny list (no doubt there are others of similar mind), the fact is the really convincing multi-spectrum records are controlled almost exclusively by the military.
    Who have a notorious track record of suppressing any public disclosure of the huge accumulated record of such incidents.

    My oft posted here go-to is the 1952 Washington flap incidents:
    https://www.thinkanomalous.com/washington-dc-ufo-sightings.html
    No chance then of 'leap-frogging' Russian/Chinese high tech drones etc. Nor of Photoshop/CGI 'creations'.
    Note the perennially repeated before and ever since, contrast there between the Official Explanation, and the rebuttals of those trained personnel actually directly involved at the time.
     
  15. foghorn Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    817
    So, if you're saying people don't need your help, then this thread is just about you saying.... Here is a ''compelling'' picture of a ufo and '' ufos are craft'' ?
     
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,196
    But to what end? OK, now the witnesses are really really sure what they saw. We're no closer to "proving" anything.
     
  17. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,778
    UFOs ARE craft of unknown origin and nature. That's clear from all the evidence posted here.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2021
  18. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,942
    Q-reeus and Magical Realist like this.
  19. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,942
    ''Dangerous?'' Where are you sending me? lol I'm oddly intrigued, though.

    From the link above:

    Summary


    The sightings over Washington D.C. in 1952 were one of the best early examples of multiple witness sightings that were also correlated with targets on multiple, independent radar units. It was one of many radar cases in the Blue Book archives that the Air Force explicitly denied having.

    Whatever the U.S. Air Force really knew about UFOs, their public stance on the issue changed dramatically after the Washington sightings. Project Blue Book was slowly turned into a public relations front, and the Air Force became more active in their effort to debunk UFOs and downplay the importance of investigating sighting reports. The Washington sightings were among the last great cases before UFOs stopped making national news, and before the Air Force stopped treating them as matters of public concern.

    I'm not much of a UFO enthusiast, although some sightings are more interesting and worth looking into, than others. What do you make of this? I wonder why the government feels the need to ''shield'' the public from these alleged sightings. That is stranger than the claims, themselves.
     
  20. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,778
    The military was afraid of looking like fools to the public. If they have no idea what ufos are, then they would appear incompetent and failing in their duty to protect the American people. The excuse of having to "shield" the public was just a phony excuse to stop looking into them. They were only shielding themselves and their reputation.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2021
  21. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,942
    I've always wondered...why is the military responsible for analyzing UFO sightings? I get that they're responsible for protecting our air space from foreign ''invasions,'' etc but are they even equipped to handle some of these alleged sightings?
     
  22. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,778
    Well the military would be most qualified in determining whatever advanced technology the ufos represented. Also, they should be the ones to know first if the ufos were a foreign invader like China or Russia. I would say they are probably the most well equipped of govt agencies for handling ufo incidents. Unfortunately, as it stands now, the tic tac incident and other Navy sightings have only mystified the military.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2021
    wegs likes this.
  23. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,942
    Okay, that makes sense.

    So, that’s it? They are “mystified” and the case is closed? lol I think it’d be a pretty elaborate scheme if it were all just a hoax of some kind to fool people about UFO’s. I mean, from what I’ve read, the claimants were doing podcasts and such to share their opinions about it - why bother if there was nothing to it? But, then it seems to have all died down now, so guess we’ll never know.

    If the US military has never seen anything like this, why wouldn’t they relentlessly be searching for answers? Maybe they are, and the general public just isn’t made aware of it.
     

Share This Page