UFO's

[Hawyatt Earp]

Just seen the Mexico stuff! Loving the dna claims , let’s see what happens next and hope there’s an international effort to study these things!

NASA ufo report out tomorrow too, Spielberg documentary series out next week, feels like momentum

 

[Kent_Mackem]

Just seen the Mexico stuff! Loving the dna claims , let’s see what happens next and hope there’s an international effort to study these things!

NASA ufo report out tomorrow too, Spielberg documentary series out next week, feels like momentum

Carl Sagan will be turning in his grave at all of this

 

[mackem1979]

You must be logged on to see media items

Interesting stuff. Doubters can keep away

 

[knumbskull]

You must be logged on to see media items

Interesting stuff. Doubters can keep away

Are these remains more or less believable than the last lot he found in 2017 which were debunked?

 

[MunkyHeed]

I did.

I WANT to believe. I'm just yet to see any evidence that convinces me.

Possibly nitpicking over semantics here, but will any ‘evidence’ convince you? Or do you need outright proof?

If the latter, there ain’t none.
Evidence, well, there’s quite a bit imo.

NASA ufo report out tomorrow too, Spielberg documentary series out next week, feels like momentum

Pretty sure the final decision on the

You must be logged on to see external links

is due soon too.

Also another

You must be logged on to see external links

to come forward potentially, although Fox has dangled plenty of carrots in the past that never saw the light. The Varginha witness for one.

 

[Neb_Safc]

the mexico shit is mad

 

[mackem1979]

Are these remains more or less believable than the last lot he found in 2017 which were debunked?

Didn’t know about that one mate.

 

[fyl2u]

Possibly nitpicking over semantics here, but will any ‘evidence’ convince you? Or do you need outright proof?

If the latter, there ain’t none.
Evidence, well, there’s quite a bit imo.

Evidence that isn't outright proof would have to be very convincing. Even then, if it isn't outright proof then the best you'll hear me say is "this evidence suggests aliens" not "we've definitely been visited by aliens". If you're being truthful, then you should be saying the same if you genuinely acknowledge that "there ain't any" outright proof.

Word of mouth stuff from people who are making a living from their websites, books, appearances on podcasts, youtube channels, TV shows and conventions? To me that's not evidence of anything other than that there's money to be made in rumours and speculation.

 

[MunkyHeed]

Evidence that isn't outright proof would have to be very convincing. Even then, if it isn't outright proof then the best you'll hear me say is "this evidence suggests aliens" not "we've definitely been visited by aliens". If you're being truthful, then you should be saying the same if you genuinely acknowledge that "there ain't any" outright proof.

Word of mouth stuff from people who are making a living from their websites, books, appearances on podcasts, youtube channels, TV shows and conventions? To me that's not evidence of anything other than that there's money to be made in rumours and speculation.

First paragraph. I agree. I’ve never said ‘definitely’ on any part this as the proof just isn’t there.

Second part is where our opinions diverge. Agree that there are grifters happily selling snake oil on this (and many other) subjects although I stand by my previous comment that there’s FAR from ‘millions’ to be made.
However, too many people with too much to lose have provided evidence stating something is going on…. The Inspector General of Intelligence found Gruschs claims ‘credible and urgent’ as an example.
Garry Nolan is another one. He’s one of the top Stanford scientists and been nominated for a Nobel for his scientific research. Why come out with all his info if it’s bullshit. His career, status and ‘value’ would be non existent overnight. No way he would get richer or more respected going down the grift route.

Thing is, word of mouth is how we get all our info these days. If this method isn’t acceptable, maybe the only way you’ll find proof is via a visitation? I’m genuinely curious for examples of what you’d consider enough proof to change your mind.

 

[FritzzRider]

Garry Nolan is another one. He’s one of the top Stanford scientists and been nominated for a Nobel for his scientific research. Why come out with all his info if it’s bullshit. His career, status and ‘value’ would be non existent overnight. No way he would get richer or more respected going down the grift route.

Always a chance that he's convinced himself with poor evidence mate, it happens day in and day out all over the world..
There are biological scientists who are also religious even though the 2 sides contradict each other..
People are genuinely bad for remembering and giving evidence, people misinterpate info all the time or get confused by what they have seen, heard or witnessed..
It's actually going to take real evidence for anyone not easily lead to belive that we have been or are being visited.

 

[MunkyHeed]

Always a chance that he's convinced himself with poor evidence mate, it happens day in and day out all over the world..

Nah. Sorry. One thing that one of the most eminent scientists on the planet would be good at is scrutinising evidence.

 

[FritzzRider]

Nah. Sorry. One thing that one of the most eminent scientists on the planet would be good at is scrutinising evidence.

You would think wouldn't you? Where are the army of other scientist standing with him on this then?

Also the part of my post that says there are biology scientists who believe in God, are they also scrutinising evidence?

 

[tonyfromalnwick]

Are these remains more or less believable than the last lot he found in 2017 which were debunked?

Same ones, aren't they ? I'm sure they said they've had these bodies for 6 years.

 

[MunkyHeed]

You would think wouldn't you? Where are the army of other scientist standing with him on this then?

The US govt. didn’t ask an army of scientists to investigate brain trauma that appeared in people who came close to UAP. Just him & his team as far as I’m aware.
Importantly, his research into this was peer-reviewed. It’d come out in this if anything was amiss.

 

[High Entropy]

Second part is where our opinions diverge. Agree that there are grifters happily selling snake oil on this (and many other) subjects although I stand by my previous comment that there’s FAR from ‘millions’ to be made.
However, too many people with too much to lose have provided evidence stating something is going on…. The Inspector General of Intelligence found Gruschs claims ‘credible and urgent’ as an example.
Garry Nolan is another one. He’s one of the top Stanford scientists and been nominated for a Nobel for his scientific research. Why come out with all his info if it’s bullshit. His career, status and ‘value’ would be non existent overnight. No way he would get richer or more respected going down the grift route.

It would really help if you understood what constitutes good evidence and everything you mentioned here is THE WORST type of evidence.

You must be logged on to see external links

word of mouth/expert opinion is the worst version of evidence. every UFO-er needs to hear this and stop saying such and such is this and that and his opinion is this - because it means very little.

Logon or register to see this image

 

[Kent_Mackem]

I'm astounded the conversation is still going.

Surely if any rational person sits down to think about the combinations of unimaginably difficult barriers that ALL need to be surpassed for any alien contact on this planet to be even possible, let alone happened, then it becomes obvious that the conversation is pointless.

At least ALL of these things need to be true:

Life must exist elsewhere (possible, maybe it does / maybe it doesn't - we know it doesn't exist on several planets and it almost certainly can't exist on billions of others)​

​

Any such life must also have reached a state of self-awareness (possible, but almost all of the life that has ever lived on this planet is/was not)​

​

The life forms must also have reached a level of intelligence to understand the concept of planets, stars and galaxies (possible, but in the 3.7 billion years that life has existed it was only in the last few hundred years that we understood this)​

​

The life forms must also NOT have reached a point of self-destruction (based on our own experience this seems unlikely. We haven't been around long and we surely have less time left)​

​

The life forms must also live within a radius of only 130, one hundred and thirty, light years in order to have detected us by radio signals (vanishingly, staggeringly, utterly unlikely. Of all the billions of light years of range in the universe, and we only "know" about the observable universe, for the life forms to exist in that tiny back garden radius from Earth is just unimaginable.)​

​

The life forms must also have detected us (maybe)​

​

The life forms must also have understood that radio waves meant other life forms, and have been able to trace the origin (maybe)​

​

The life forms must also have wanted to get here (would you?)​

​

The life forms must also have been able to get here within 137 years (max) which means travelling at the speed of light or faster (as far as we know this is impossible, so this should rule it out as a silly idea immediately)​

Having done all that... and there are probably loads more conditions that need to all be true.... we are still then being asked to believe that they have arrived, undetected from all of our SETI instruments and the paranoid early warning detection systems, and have only been picked up and are known about by people who sit in their underpants watching YouTube videos.

Give your heads a shake man! Keep watching Independence Day, playing your Space Invaders games... but stick your "evidence" up your pipes.

 

[High Entropy]

Also the part of my post that says there are biology scientists who believe in God, are they also scrutinising evidence?

BINGO !

 

[MunkyHeed]

Also the part of my post that says there are biology scientists who believe in God, are they also scrutinising evidence?

Surely they would. Why be a scientist (religious or not) if you don’t.

 

[knumbskull]

Same ones, aren't they ? I'm sure they said they've had these bodies for 6 years.

Wey the Nazca mummy has already been debunked so I would hope not.

You must be logged on to see external links

Maussan swiftly became involved in the investigation surrounding the discovery,

You must be logged on to see external links

that researchers had uncovered irrefutable proof that “these creatures were not from this Earth”.

However, DNA samples taken from both the hand and brain tissue from one of the specimens were found to be 100 per cent human, according to a report from the Paleo DNA laboratory at Lakehead University, Canada.

Furthermore, the mummies’ bizarre appearance led some experts to believe that the remains could have been tampered with to make them look more alien.

He also tried something similar in 2015 with a blurred photo of a small skeleton, putting up a reward for anybody who could debunk it, then never paid up when it was debunked a fortnight later. It was the mummified skeleton of a small child.

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[mackem1979]

I'm astounded the conversation is still going.

Surely if any rational person sits down to think about the combinations of unimaginably difficult barriers that ALL need to be surpassed for any alien contact on this planet to be even possible, let alone happened, then it becomes obvious that the conversation is pointless.

At least ALL of these things need to be true:

Life must exist elsewhere (possible, maybe it does / maybe it doesn't - we know it doesn't exist on several planets and it almost certainly can't exist on billions of others)​

​

Any such life must also have reached a state of self-awareness (possible, but almost all of the life that has ever lived on this planet is/was not)​

​

The life forms must also have reached a level of intelligence to understand the concept of planets, stars and galaxies (possible, but in the 3.7 billion years that life has existed it was only in the last few hundred years that we understood this)​

​

The life forms must also NOT have reached a point of self-destruction (based on our own experience this seems unlikely. We haven't been around long and we surely have less time left)​

​

The life forms must also live within a radius of only 130, one hundred and thirty, light years in order to have detected us by radio signals (vanishingly, staggeringly, utterly unlikely. Of all the billions of light years of range in the universe, and we only "know" about the observable universe, for the life forms to exist in that tiny back garden radius from Earth is just unimaginable.)​

​

The life forms must also have detected us (maybe)​

​

The life forms must also have understood that radio waves meant other life forms, and have been able to trace the origin (maybe)​

​

The life forms must also have wanted to get here (would you?)​

​

The life forms must also have been able to get here within 137 years (max) which means travelling at the speed of light or faster (as far as we know this is impossible, so this should rule it out as a silly idea immediately)​

Having done all that... and there are probably loads more conditions that need to all be true.... we are still then being asked to believe that they have arrived, undetected from all of our SETI instruments and the paranoid early warning detection systems, and have only been picked up and are known about by people who sit in their underpants watching YouTube videos.

Give your heads a shake man! Keep watching Independence Day, playing your Space Invaders games... but stick your "evidence" up your pipes.

So you’re saying there’s a chance? *insert dumb and dumber gif