Alien life? -- your take on the subject

were you in the boy scouts deni?

truth
I also feel that we are not the only "intelligent" life forms in the entire universe. But that's a far cry from believing that other life forms have developed the kind of cultures that would result in the kind of industrial technologies we have forged and a desire and ability to travel to other parts of the universe, and as far away as our world.
To argue that the evidence of UFOs (I don't mean unidentified flying objects; I mean space crafts from other worlds) is sufficient for us to even consider the likelihood of visitations, is to tread on very unsound ground. That doesn't mean at all that this means we are the only intelligent life forms in the universe. Did I repeat myself?

Last night, I was anally probed by some aliens.

Unless it was my damn roomate playing the frozen zuchinni sodomy joke on me again. Bastard.

No JL I think that was clear

if I may paraphrase:

Extraterrestrial intelligence in the Universe probably yes

Visitations unproven

Slappy, careful you'll get thrown off the planet

Slappy, if there was no mayonnaise present, it was an alien probe, just so you know.

JL, now we're back on track.



But claimed by numerous knowledgeable witnesses.

truth
I USED TO like zuccinni.
Yes, Wolf, it's a question of evidence. Nothing more.

at the reference to vegetables.

Can't really say I have any expertise on this topic, but I've had three sightings to date which have had to be categorized. Whether they were extraterrestrial in origin, I haven't a clue. All I know is that I couldn't dismiss them as readily as I'd like. Barring the possibility that I could be insane, which I haven't discounted, I'm still researching until such time my questions are answered.

Go ahead, call me a flake.

truth
Deni, flake? Not at all. You have the sound of credibility. But THAT is not evidence for the incredulous like me.

How would you prove to me that Mars exists, JL ?

Deni;
it is a matter of carefully examining the 'nature' of the limb, prior to 'climbing onboard'!

truth
Wolf, let's not get murky. The task is for YOU to provide convincing evidence for your claim. I don't expect absolute formal proof; just evidence clear enough and strong enough to turn the mind of the sceptic, not please the believer.

I was attempting to show that the standards for proof are apparently absurdly strict when it comes to extraterrestrial craft, yet are based on the same observations by experts, who in the end we choose to believe. If you don't believe an Air Force general when he insists some UFOs can not be terrestrial, and then some, then I don't see why you should believe anything.

Eg. why Mars really exists.

I'm interested, Deni, if you were thinking of giving us some details. A lot of what doesn't work as evidence still needs to be explained.

Here's the crux of the biscuit. You care very much that others believe your wild and unsubstantiated claims for alien visitation. You have linked many, many, thoroughly unreliable web sites. You apparently don't bother to do background on the sites, who's running them, what they might be up to (like making a living off the suckers). Yet you're willing to get nasty with people who are sceptical, because your desire to believe that UFO's are alien visitation approaches the realm of religious fanaticism. I don't go to your links anymore, everyone i ever saw in the past was crap, and it was immediately obvious, even without the deeper investigation--which in every case turned up many good reasons to consider those sites suspect.

On the other hand, sceptics such as i don't give a tinkers damn what you believe. Which is why i'll waste no more time on your suspect lins. You don't wanna believe in Mars? No skin off my ass . . .

Wolf, I followed the link to a list of names of 'respectable' UFO witnesses. Top of the list was Dr Puthoff. He was reviewing a book by Paul Hill who was doing some theoretical work on possible UFO propulsion.

Puthoff's paper was on 'zero point engery' not UFOs. Among his credentials was his involvement with the CIA's Remove Viewing Project (something started by Dr John Dee for Elizabeth 1, with similar results).

But my attention was drawn to this passage in his review

Now that was really quite interesting. Until you start to think. Hill didn't actually analyse the sample. Had he found it consisted of only Mg26, it would have been really quite remarkable. But Hill ASSUMED is was pure Mg26 to account for the anomalous published density figure.

Again we are led down the happy little road assuming here, exaggerating there bending and twisting until we have "proved" to our own satisfaction that what we always accepted as an article of faith was indeed true.

Help yourself, steve. What about the other thirty witnesses. All wrong?

That' exactly my point Wolf. You describe them as witnesses. But the very first one is no such thing.

But I got interested in the "Ubatuba Magnesium Mystery" (nice name Ubatuba, a strange and mysterious name, don't you think)

And I found this:

from http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/70/ubatuba.html


"However, according to the Condon Report, a check was made of Dow Metallurgical Laboratory records and revealed that the company had made experimental batches of magnesium containing various proportions of strontium. As early as 1940 it had produced a 700 gm batch of magnesium containing nominally the same concentration of strontium as was observed in the Ubatuba sample. The Project's conclusion was that there was nothing unique or unearthly in the composition of the Ubatuba fragments and there was thus no reason to suppose that they were of extraterrestrial origin"

and

"That the material is not 100 percent pure magnesium does not lessen the impact of the case, for we still have to explain how that magnesium got to a remote beach area at that time. What manner of machine was the shiny disc-shaped object that exploded?

We do not, in fact, have to explain anything of the sort, as there is no convincing evidence that the samples came from a flying disc, or that they were picked up from a beach, at Ubatuba, or anywhere else. The samples first came to light in the office of a Rio society columnist, where they arrived through the post. The writer of the letter accompanying the samples and his alleged fellow witnesses to the UFO sighting have never been traced.

The more rational conclusion in this case is, plainly, that the Ubatuba affair was a hoax. It must be regarded as one of the most successful hoaxes in the history of ufology, in view of the time and money spent and the amount of technical expertise lavished on it."

Very industrious. The problem is that the Condon report is one big debunking operation.