Not really.

The possibility exists, so it's relevant.

You got some kinda problem with aliens?

They don't want your job, man. It's cool...

7/24/2008 10:36:48 PM

just because the possibility of something exists does not make it relevant.
if you find a way to detect or measure this possibility, then we'll talk. Until then, it's a dead issue

7/24/2008 10:40:24 PM

Detection and evidence, while empirically useful, are not exactly relevant either.

The existence of aliens visiting our planet would not be predicated on our detection of it, belief in it, or worldwide acknowledgement of it.

Why would you expect a psychic to know how his/her abilities worked, btw? I just read that on page 1 and am curious.

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 10:50 PM. Reason : ...]

7/24/2008 10:45:48 PM

i didn't say the psychic would have to know how his own powers worked.
I was saying: at this point, science (nor any other institution) would have a reasonable explanation for how psychic powers would work, i.e. it fails the plausibility test, with our current knowledge

That's not to say, though, that psychic powers couldn't enter into science, if such a power was successfully demonstrated, even if the mechanism for how it worked remained a mystery, at least at first. But that's jumping ahead a bit, seeing as how psychic powers have never been shown to be reliable, repeatable, or even marginally demonstrable to be more predictive than chance.

7/24/2008 10:56:36 PM

What I find fascinating is when pilots report sighting, not a little saucer zipping around, but some huge multiple-football field long, cylinder displaying incredible moves and speeds. Ive read multiple reports from vastly different witnesses who claim seeing the same huge ships.
Why make up such a wild story? Wouldn't you come up with something a little more believable?

7/24/2008 11:11:46 PM

Pilots and military witnesses impress me. Radar/visual contacts, especially.

The whole evidence barrier is tough to break today. Photos are unreliable and can be chopped to show anything. Movies, too. Really, you have to damn the human race by arresting, robbing, or murdering an alien to impress today's skeptics.

7/24/2008 11:16:16 PM

Dr. Mitchell is not the only astronaut or military pilot to have seen UFOs. Here are several more:

Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin
Scott Carpenter
Commander Eugene Cernan
Maurice Chatelain
Major Gordon Cooper
John Glenn
Dr. Jerry Linenberger
James Lovell and Frank Borman
Walter Schirra
Donald Slayton
Joseph A. Walker
Ed White and James McDivitt
Major Robert White

http://www.ufologie.net/htm/astronauts.htm

UFO hits Romanian fighter plane

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1QO5UH38IhU

(Click more info for translation.)

UFO - Cylinder Chased by Soviet MIG-21 Accelerates

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1nJFbBGtV8o

UFOs - FOX News - Mexican Air Force - CNN News

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDOOZ_IPb6Y

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 11:35 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2008 11:25:21 PM

I bet they're all associated with some hooie, though.

7/24/2008 11:35:33 PM

Quote :

"The Brookings Institution did a report on space affairs for NASA back in 1960 that covered the implications of ET contact with human civilization. While it made no clear recommendation of how to handle the event, it's pretty clear that chaos was the group's academic estimation of what would occur if the public knew. "

Just because people in the 60s might have panicked doesn't mean we would now. It would probably mostly be the hardcore religious people that would freak out, but I don't think most people would.

But, I still can't imagine anyone in the gov. having clear evidence of UFOs and not releasing it. People have a hard enough time keeping even small secrets, something like that would have to eat at someone's soul.

7/25/2008 1:52:24 AM

Until they were about 77 say?

7/25/2008 1:57:22 AM

^ his "evidence" is far from clear, it's probably the exact opposite of clear.

Of the millions and millions of perfectly visible photos you see on photo sites on the web, why has no one captured a nice, clean shot of a UFO?

7/25/2008 2:02:16 AM

I suppose briefings don't qualify as evidence if you don't get to keep the data.

To the quetsion, yes.

The Trent photos come to mind.
http://ufos.about.com/od/visualproofphotosvideo/ig/Best-UFO-Photographs/1950paultrent-jpg.htm

Washington DC 1952 (this was also confirmed on radar by the surrounding air bases)
http://ufos.about.com/od/visualproofphotosvideo/ig/Best-UFO-Photographs/1952washdc-jpg.htm

Los Angeles (c. WWII) - the military even fired anti-aicraft shells this thing, what you see are our spotlights on it


For more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Los_Angeles


[Edited on July 25, 2008 at 2:23 AM. Reason : ...]

7/25/2008 2:21:50 AM

^ I've seen that before on UFO Files--front-page photo and news. Given the accounts, it's nearly impossible to dismiss or diminish.

Here's a few things to chew on:

Fife Symington, former governor of Arizona:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3zotvpZLnY

Harry Truman, president of the United States:

Quote :

"'A massive build-up of sightings over the United States in 1952,' wrote Gerald K. Haines in an article for the CIA, 'especially in July, alarmed the Truman administration.' It led the Truman administration to give the order that the flying saucers be shot down. On July 26, 1952, the Air Force obeyed and gave the order to 'Shoot them down!' 'Several prominent scientists, including Albert Einstein, protested the order to the White House and urged that the command be rescinded, not only in the interest of future intergalactic peace, but also in the interest of self-preservation: Extraterrestrials would certainly look upon an attack by the primitive jet firepower as a breach of the universal laws of hospitality.' 'The "shoot them down" order was consequently withdrawn on White House orders by five o'clock that afternoon.' That night the saucers were back."

http://www.presidentialufo.com/harrys.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjQvMiMYjQ0

Dennis Kucinich, U.S. congressman:

Quote :

"Asked about the statement by actress Shirley MacLaine that Kucinich had seen a UFO at her house, Kucinich said that he had. He quickly sought to clarify -- an 'unidentified flying object'. . . ."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/10/ufos_and_alien_life.html

Jimmy Carter, president of the United States:

http://www.nicap.org/waves/CarterSightingRptOct1969.pdf

The late Peter Jennings, journalist:

Quote :

"On Feb. 24 [2005], 'Peter Jennings Reporting: UFOs -- Seeing Is Believing' takes a fresh look at the UFO phenomenon. 'As a journalist,' says Jennings, 'I began this project with a healthy dose of skepticism and as open a mind as possible. After almost 150 interviews with scientists, investigators and with many of those who claim to have witnessed unidentified flying objects, there are important questions that have not been completely answered -- and a great deal not fully explained."

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Primetime/story?id=468496

[Edited on July 25, 2008 at 3:48 AM. Reason : .]

7/25/2008 3:46:37 AM

Quote :

"To the quetsion, yes. The Trent photos come to mind."

are you dense? Moron asked why, of the millions of people taking millions of pictures has there never been a clean, clear shot, demonstrably not altered, of a UFO, and you provide exactly the fuzzy, blurry pictures he's talking about! A black and white photo of a blurry oval? WTF?

Quote :

"What I find fascinating is when pilots report sighting, not a little saucer zipping around, but some huge multiple-football field long, cylinder displaying incredible moves and speeds. Ive read multiple reports from vastly different witnesses who claim seeing the same huge ships. Why make up such a wild story? Wouldn't you come up with something a little more believable?"

reports of similar nature are not compelling just because they are similar, because people making the reports 1) have very likely been influenced by hearing other reports and therefore have predetermined images in their mind, and 2) they could have seen the same phenomenon, UFO or not.
Once again - with objects supposedly this big, it shouldn't be that damned hard to get some pictures or videos of them, preferably from multiple sources at different angles, that aren't clearly edited, taken at night where only dots of light are visible, or so blurry they could be anything.

Even reports of "flying saucers", which is the most common type of UFO sighting, are all based on a single incident that was misinterpreted by the press and readers. Kenneth Arnold reported a UFO, which he described (and drew, below) as a somewhat normal looking airplane, at least in that it had a body and wings, not unlike the B-2 Stealth today. He described the motion of the plane, however, as "a saucer if you skip it across water". Then a strange thing happened.... almost everybody who saw UFOs after that point claimed to have seen a "flying saucer," picking up on Arnold's description in order to consciously or unconsciously match his encounter to give it more credibility, but they got minor detail of what his ship actually looked like completely wrong

7/25/2008 7:12:34 AM

Quote :

"they cannot even show that they actually have any paranormal abilities!. Every time a psychic (or homeopath, or dowser, or mentalist) claims to have a power that science cannot explain, they fail at reliably and measurably demonstrating that power. That is not science's fault - that is their fault"

one of the reasons this can not be explained is b/c science still doesnt have the complete understanding of how the brain works.

one very interesting shows that i watched last year was America's Psychic Challenge. Although I am a believer of this phenomenon this show was very convincing.
http://www.lifetimeradio.com/on-tv/shows/americas-psychic-challenge/about?page=5

There are also very famous psychics out there like Lisa Williams that shows their paranormal abilities on every show.
http://www.mylifetime.com/on-tv/shows/lisa-williams

7/25/2008 11:54:45 AM

^^

^ http://videos.lifetimetv.com/?fr_story=bcf574948fe5e4232b82e0a7ece36347dade9caf&rf=bm%20%3Cbr%20/%3E

Haha, are you kidding? That show convinces you people have psychic powers? And it's a TV show, you don't know what they're doing behind to scenes. It's like Crossing OVer, they don't show you all the missed predictions he makes, or the "interviewing" before hand or the screen process on audience members.

[Edited on July 25, 2008 at 12:06 PM. Reason : ]

7/25/2008 11:59:50 AM

agentlion, do you know anything about photograpy? do you understand why pictures come out fuzzy when trying to take fast action shots of anything, esp. if said subject is really far away.

when trying to take pictures of anything, esp. moving really fast, you have to have a camera set on the proper ISO, aperture, shutter speed and focus. if you are zooming out to the most extreme a tripod is almost mandatory unless you have the hands of a surgeon

7/25/2008 12:03:24 PM

^ None of that explains the lack of a SINGLE clear photo, particular a modern one, of a UFO, or sign of alien presence.

7/25/2008 12:07:47 PM

if you understand the logistics of taking a photo it does

if you want a clear photo you are going to have to get a shot of something landing or still or keep a very expensive camera with you at all times.

i doubt 99% of the population carries such equipment. jbaz might be the exception to the rule

7/25/2008 12:35:52 PM

^ I understand plenty about taking a photo. But what you don't realize is that Jbaz's idea of a good photo is a far higher standard than i'm looking for.

Cell phones can take good enough photos to satisfy my requirement. There's not any half-decent cell phone pics of UFOs, or cheap crappy consumer digital cameras (which would also take very acceptable pictures), or nicer prosumer cameras, or the pro-level monsters. Each of these types of cameras are far more prevalent than the B/W film cameras from the 40s, 50s, and 60s, but we don't have anything close to a good picture of a UFO from them. Either the Gov. UFO conspiracy is powerful enough to acquire the pictures before they hit the net, AND silence the picture taker, or there is another aspect to this issue that has nothing to do with UFOs or aliens (that involves people playing pranks/jokes on people).

7/25/2008 12:41:14 PM

I'll note that you sidestepped the other two pictures in favor of bashing what you viewed as the weaker evidence. But then, photos aren't artifacts or life forms, so we're still at square one...

Quote :

"are you dense? Moron asked why, of the millions of people taking millions of pictures has there never been a clean, clear shot, demonstrably not altered, of a UFO, and you provide exactly the fuzzy, blurry pictures he's talking about! A black and white photo of a blurry oval? WTF?"

The difference here is that the "blurry oval" photo you're attacking with words of incredulity has been scientifically scrutinized for well over 50 years by plenty of skeptics just as eager as you to debunk it.

Over fifty years. The object is still considered an "unknown."

7/25/2008 12:53:12 PM

Quote :

"The object is still considered an "unknown.""

and.......

7/25/2008 1:15:16 PM

It's not like the scientific community can offer better than that.

There's no "alien spacecraft" benchmark photo.

7/25/2008 1:21:54 PM

1. Go to Moon
2. Meet Aliens
3. ???????????
4. Profit

7/25/2008 1:26:35 PM

Quote :

"It's not like the scientific community can offer better than that."

are you fucking KIDDING ME? Are you that ignorant of how science works?

THE UFO PEOPLE ARE THE ONE'S MAKING THE CLAIM. It is up to them to provide proof or evidence. No one else is obligated in the least to "disprove" any of their crappy evidence.

The fact that no one know what that black dot on the 50 year old picture is doesn't change a damn thing. Are you trying to prove their are alien spacecraft visiting the earth, or that it is possible to take pictures with fuzzy black dots on them?


gunzz:

Quote :

"one of the reasons this can not be explained is b/c science still doesnt have the complete understanding of how the brain works."

once again, "how the brain works" is irrelevant to this discussion. Yes - that's perfectly fine that we don't understand how the brain works, or that if psychic powers existed we wouldn't know how or why. The point is, if a person was consistent able to demonstrate psychic powers, the scientific community would be forced to accept this advancement, even without knowledge of how it works. As I've said, no one has been able to pass this simple barrier. The fact that you take TV shows, designed as money-making entertainment shows, as "proof" of physic powers only shows that you have a very, very low level of skepticism on the topic.

7/25/2008 1:30:53 PM

Quote :

"I'll note that you sidestepped the other two pictures in favor of bashing what you viewed as the weaker evidence. But then, photos aren't artifacts or life forms, so we're still at square one..."

Huh? none of the photos posted in this thread so far, by you or hooksaw, is anything but dark and hazy or blurry. None of them are remotely conclusive of alien spaceships, or spaceships of any sort, in any way.

7/25/2008 2:03:11 PM

the reason i cited 2 TV shows is b/c it was the first thing that came to my mind. i mean, if you would like to contact Lisa Williams to have a reading or to be a client feel free to visit her at http://lisawilliamsmedium.squarespace.com/

Quote :

"very, very low level of skepticism on the topic"

i do b/c i have had a couple of crazy experiences in my life along with a few family members so i do believe in something after death in terms of the paranormal and the ability to "see dead people"

7/25/2008 2:07:18 PM

^ Are you kidding? http://videos.lifetimetv.com/?fr_chl=7cb3b788515bff2e44291b8863a9b829cb4b08bf&rf

She is clearly full of shit. It's the same thing as that John Edwards guy from Crossing Over. She's making vague suggestions, then based on the people's reactions, she changes or fine tunes what she's saying. Just look when she asks if the grandma had cancer, the person starts to hesitate, then she says "or did someone else have cancer" that you know. That's not psychic powers, that's just random guessing. Also note how much the camera cuts, what do you think they're cutting out?

7/25/2008 2:16:22 PM

South Park did more to expose exactly what John Edwards does in 30 minutes than the rest of the press or scientific community can ever hope to do. Their explanation of Cold Readings and Warm Readings is all you need to know about how "psychics" or "mediums" work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warm_reading

Penn and Teller's very first episode of Bullshit on Showtime was also explaining in detail how cold reading works

7/25/2008 2:29:44 PM

While we're on the topic of tv shows, I'm a subscriber of the ATHF theory of alien visitation. The aliens came to earth and were immediately enslave by the Santa Ape and forced to make his stupid and USELESS toys.

It was not a holly jolly Christmas that year, for many were killed!

7/25/2008 10:48:42 PM

Quote :

"It's the same thing as that John Edwards guy from Crossing Over."

I read somewhere that some audience members of Crossing Over discovered hidden microphones embedded into their seats.

Yes there are some fakes- perhaps a bunch of them, but that doesn't automatically disprove pyschic energy/power. We should be very careful when deciding that everything that can be known is already known.

7/25/2008 11:02:37 PM

Quote :

"Yes there are some fakes- perhaps a bunch of them, but that doesn't automatically disprove pyschic energy/power."

of course not. Then again, it is impossible to prove a negative like that.
However, none of these power have ever been close to proven either, so that's where we stand now.

If you start with a tabula rasa, with no assumptions about what is possible or not, it is still up to the claimant (a psychic, in this case) to demonstrate and prove his ability. This has never been done. It is logically impossible to disprove the existence of something that has not been measured, just like it is impossible to disprove that aliens have visited us or that bigfoot exists.

7/25/2008 11:32:40 PM

^
Well-reasoned.

The people who know the truth, yet cannot show it... must be very frustrating.

7/26/2008 1:07:40 AM

The relationship between science and the paranormal isn't as clearcut as agentlion suggests. I remember reading a MIT-published meta-analysis of psi experiments. The author concluded that people did better than chance, though only marginally so. I don't remember if that article dealt with attempts to influence random number generators, but those seem to statistically significant.

Furthermore, respected scientists and military researchers in particular have be interested in the psychic phenomenon for decades. They've poured money into it. I wouldn't count those folks publishing successful results. They might just keep it secret.

So, in the light of military attention and ambiguous experimental data, I say it's premature to dismiss the paranormal too vehemently. Certain science supports limited extrasensory perception and psychokinesis.

7/26/2008 1:34:49 AM

Quote :

"agentlion: are you fucking KIDDING ME? Are you that ignorant of how science works?"

What are they going to do, say, "OH SEE THAT? ALIEN SPACECRAFT TOTALLY LEAVE THAT SIGNATURE. CALL NASA! WE GOT ONE!"

Without a body of knowledge to support the idea that aliens exist and fly in crafts we can catalogue, no positive statements identifying the craft as alien can be made.

But please, I'd love to see you proselytize on the Holy Church of Science.

Quote :

"agentlion: THE UFO PEOPLE ARE THE ONE'S MAKING THE CLAIM."

WHAT FUCKING CLAIM

AND WHAT FUCKING "UFO PEOPLE"

IN CAPITAL LETTERS ONLY, PLEASE

Quote :

"agentlion: It is up to them to provide proof or evidence."

If they're interested in convincing a scientific body of the authenticity of their experience, sure. But proof is not necessary for any given experience of reality to have been authentically perceived. My apologies to your church, but we don't live in a laboratory, we live in a universe.

And I'll ask again...WHAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE?

Could a photo show an alien spacecraft?

How could the photo conclusively prove it was an authentic spacecraft? What characteristics?

Quote :

"agentlion: No one else is obligated in the least to "disprove" any of their crappy evidence."

Indeed not.

Witness yourself wholesale ignoring simultaneous radar-visual contacts over the nation's capital in 1952.

Quote :

"agentlion: The fact that no one know what that black dot on the 50 year old picture is doesn't change a damn thing."

Nope.

Just means that conventional explanations have failed for a half-century, and invites speculation.

Quote :

"agentlion: Are you trying to prove their are alien spacecraft visiting the earth, or that it is possible to take pictures with fuzzy black dots on them that cannot be identified as known phenomena?"

Fixed it for you.

Epiphenomena really seems to get to you.

[Edited on July 26, 2008 at 4:31 AM. Reason : ...]

7/26/2008 4:28:55 AM

UFO Hunters: Code Red - October 7, 1965

Part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJo2SeNZRC0

Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4UJsFVakDA

Part 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2itqUs-Vmo

Part 4:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOPe9bm2mzk

Part 5:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Km18Ye_0k

Part 6?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgLKkNY9eUA

7/26/2008 5:22:51 AM

So... hooksaw is an avid UFO chaser.












this explains a lot.

7/26/2008 11:29:22 AM

^^ As those videos note, Edwards Base does a lot of (very famous) test flights. There's nothing in those videos that wouldn't be consistent with the testing of supersonic jets of the era.

7/26/2008 12:40:29 PM

^^ Not at all, douche bag. I just try to keep an open mind--unlike you and some of your cohorts here that only claim to have open minds.

Flying saucers in New Mexico? Governor rekindles Roswell

Quote :

"Ten years after the U.S. Air Force closed its books on the claim that a UFO crashed in Roswell, N.M., in 1947, a top Democratic Party figure wants to reopen the investigation into the cosmic legend."

Quote :

"Now Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who chaired the recent Democratic convention in Boston, says in his foreword to a new book that 'the mystery surrounding this crash has never been adequately explained -- not by independent investigators, and not by the U.S. government. ... There are as many theories as there are official explanations. 'Clearly, it would help everyone if the U.S. government disclosed everything it knows,' says Richardson, who served as Energy secretary under President Bill Clinton. 'The American people can handle the truth -- no matter how bizarre or mundane. ... With full disclosure and our best scientific investigation, we should be able to find out what happened on that fateful day in July 1947.'"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/08/16/MNGAK88OQQ1.DTL

^ Um. . .yeah--did you even watch the videos? When you show me a craft in our past or even present fleet that can outrun a jetfighter above an altitude of 40,000 feet while climbing and continue to rise into outer space (confirmed on radar and by the eyewitness pilot concerning the objects in question) until it vanishes, you might have a point. In addition, all five Air Force bases in the area that night confirmed that they had nothing in the air.

[Edited on July 26, 2008 at 5:52 PM. Reason : .]

7/26/2008 5:50:11 PM

^ did YOU understand the video? The pilots in the video were running at sub-sonic speeds, the yf12 which was being tested at about this time (this is noted in the video, but brushed off because in typical history channel style, they are trying to entertain not educate) is capable of about mach 3 (supposedly higher, but that's classified), which is about 2100 mph, which is about the speed the radar was tracking the object (it's not in that video but reported elsewhere), up to 80,000 ft. To a pilot in an inferior aircraft, this is going to drastically outpace it, and look like it's going in to space.

And for something that is suppose to be classified, especially if they are trying to demonstrate stealth capabilities, they aren't going to tell the regular staff who obviously can't keep their mouths shut (otherwise they wouldn't have been in the History channel documentary).

[Edited on July 26, 2008 at 6:05 PM. Reason : ]

7/26/2008 6:03:33 PM

^ Did you see the part in which the Air Force guy explained that they tested weird shit all the time--and they always let the tower(s) know so they didn't have a fucking midair collision, you dumbfuck? I don't give a shit what you think or believe, okay?

STFU, troll.

[Edited on July 26, 2008 at 6:08 PM. Reason : Piss off.]

7/26/2008 6:08:03 PM

^ haha you start throwing the insults and I'M the troll?

This guy OBVIOUSLY wasn't told about this project (and likely many others).

And the CIA agrees with me:

Quote :

"Another consequence of all this flight activity was an increase in UFO reports. As with the U-2 in the 1950s, there is a strong correlation between the A-12 flight schedule and “alien aircraft” sightings submitted in the early and mid-1960s. [5]"

- https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/a-12/full-stress-testing.html#5-haines-73
The YF12 is a variant of the A12

Does it make more sense that it was an alien at Edward's Airforce Base, or that it was this plane that they happened to be testing at around the same time, that can do exactly what those pilots described, and in a TV show titled "UFO Hunters" they conveniently didn't interview the people who would have actually known what was going on.

I'll gladly accept the title of troll, but you are clearly an idiot (not surprising actually) if you think based on a history channel documentary about alien UFOs, that this must have been aliens, and not the secret military plane that is well known to have been tested at this same time, at this same airbase.

7/26/2008 6:36:17 PM

so, our resident crank, hooksaw, champion of global warming skeptics, conservative warrior battling liberal media conspiracies at every turn...

believes in high-level government coverups of UFO sightings and Alien contacts.



and he calls it "keeping an open mind"



why am i even surprised? i really shouldn't be, i guess. but still.

7/26/2008 9:57:37 PM

Quote :

"but you are clearly an idiot if you think based that this must have been aliens,"

You know, I think the skeptics are gonna win either way on this issue. We have two main possibilities:

1) Aliens are a hoax. The skeptics were right, they make us look like fools.

2) Aliens are proved real. The skeptics will say "Fine..they're real. But before they were proved real, there was no hard evidence to make any sane person believe they existed. We are intellectually off the hook"

7/26/2008 10:20:26 PM

^ I think you misunderstand (or misrepresent) the role skeptics are playing.

I personally would love for aliens to be real, even if we have no contact with them at all, just knowing they exist would drastically revolution the aerospace and physics community (because knowing that FTL travel for conventional matter is possible would give them a clear goal to work towards). It doesn't serve me (as a future engineer) or society for people to make VERY grand claims about life elsewhere and not be able to back up their assertions. It would be absolutely monumental, probably the most amazing discovery in the entire history of humanity, if someone had the tiniest spec of actual evidence that aliens have visited us in spaceships. For people who love space, it would literally be tantamount to knowing God exists definitively.

I'm not trying to doubt or call anyone an idiot, I just don't want to get my hopes up because some crackpot ate some shrooms.

[Edited on July 26, 2008 at 11:23 PM. Reason : ]

7/26/2008 11:22:51 PM

Quote :

"if someone had the tiniest spec of actual evidence"

I understand the desire for evidence.

But we may have numerous examples of evidence right in front of our eyes, but the limitations of our knowledge could be blocking our view.

Everything needed to make a microwave oven existed in the days of cavemen, they just lacked the knowledge and intuition to put one together at that time.

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift." --Albert Einstein.

Hard rationality is fine, all I'm saying is leave a little room for wonder.

7/27/2008 1:37:05 AM

Quote :

"But we may have numerous examples of evidence right in front of our eyes, but the limitations of our knowledge could be blocking our view. "

we have optimistic speculation, at best.

I don't see how asking for a clear picture of a UFO, instead of blurry pictures of lights that are 50 years old, is reflective of a limit of our knowledge. I don't expect you to find pictures of a cloaked UFO or anything, but people say we are visited often by aliens, well than snap a picture. And don't say it's because it's hard to take a good photo, you can find tons of amateurs pics of fast moving objects online (planes, cars, etc).

7/27/2008 1:54:49 AM

Quote :

"Everything needed to make a microwave oven existed in the days of cavemen, they just lacked the knowledge and intuition to put one together at that time."

OMG im surrounded



srsly, dude... stick to macroeconomic analyses.

7/27/2008 1:55:45 AM

Quote :

""Everything needed to make a microwave oven existed in the days of cavemen, they just lacked the knowledge and intuition to put one together at that time.""

That's an accurate statement. In fact, it basically took less than 10 generations and the accompanying population explosion to accumulate enough knowledge and raw materials to build one, which I find astonishing. It's unfathomable what kind of progress we will make in another 10 generations, whether or not the population is allowed to grow unchecked.

7/27/2008 2:08:20 PM

THEY HAD MICROWAVES IN ANCIENT ATLANTIS!!!1

THE MAYANS HAD AIRPLANES!!

7/27/2008 2:11:35 PM