Board Logo
« NYT Puts Big Article Out On Pentagon UFO Funding »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Feb 23rd, 2018, 2:42pm


Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

*Totally FREE 24/7 Access *Your Nickname and Avatar *Private Messages

*Join today and be a part of one of the largest UFO sites on the Net.


« Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7  Notify Send Topic Print
 veryhotthread  Author  Topic: NYT Puts Big Article Out On Pentagon UFO Funding  (Read 4155 times)
nofooln
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Yes, the Earth is Flat


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 141
xx Re: NYT Puts Big Article Out On Pentagon UFO Fundi
« Reply #75 on: Jan 17th, 2018, 10:12pm »

on Jan 16th, 2018, 7:47pm, travex wrote:
And it will remain a mystery, because the idea that the ET's monitor the radio traffic and understand its content will never materialize in our silly heads.

This is a complete comedy... rolleyes

Sadly you are right. All we can hope for is that the military found this unsettling and gave it its due consideration. The movement of this object showed intelligent control beginning with the movement just above the water that attracted the pilot's attention, to countering the pilots circular flight path and zipping away at impossible speed, only to wait at the very spot he was assigned to return to.

I've been saying that although they have not made contact, they have communicated with their actions. This is a great example of that. They seem almost playful, but somehow I doubt they are playing games. They appear to be showing their superiority, and that they know quite a bit about us; in this case how we deploy our military assets.

Yeah, having that object waiting for them must have been a little creepy.

NF/Flat







[/quote]
User IP Logged

Cliff-67
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 2060
xx Re: NYT Puts Big Article Out On Pentagon UFO Fundi
« Reply #76 on: Jan 17th, 2018, 10:29pm »

Radio contact is possible but if it was aliens then telepathy should also be considered.....

'They' are very good at it.....( tinfoil hat jokes aside )


Cliff




« Last Edit: Jan 17th, 2018, 10:40pm by Cliff-67 » User IP Logged

NEE NED ZB 6TNN DEIBEDH SIEFI EBEEE SSIEI ESEE SEEE !!
Nyx
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 1960
xx Re: NYT Puts Big Article Out On Pentagon UFO Fundi
« Reply #77 on: Jan 20th, 2018, 9:19pm »

A question that has been on my mind is how Luis Elizondo just waltzed sensitive UFO tapes out past the Department of Defense into the general public.

As far as I know, no retribution has been put on Elizondo for doing so.

This brings up the question that the Department of Defense wanted this to happen, and could be behind all of this disclosure.

It could be the general public is being lead through the nose by the Department of Defense?
User IP Logged

travex
Guest
xx Re: NYT Puts Big Article Out On Pentagon UFO Fundi
« Reply #78 on: Jan 24th, 2018, 05:21am »

on Jan 20th, 2018, 9:19pm, Nyx wrote:
A question that has been on my mind is how Luis Elizondo just waltzed sensitive UFO tapes out past the Department of Defense into the general public.

As far as I know, no retribution has been put on Elizondo for doing so.

This brings up the question that the Department of Defense wanted this to happen, and could be behind all of this disclosure.

It could be the general public is being lead through the nose by the Department of Defense?


The DoD interest has always been to show to the public the opposite - that the UFO phenomenon has no connection with some ET civilization visiting the Earth. But there is a conflict with what you expect and what you see. Your question would survive intact, had the DOD released a made-up case of a UFO encounter and the case was consequently debunked by respected scientists, meaning the scientists would, for example, produce a very similar video shot by some university folks observing a phenomenon for which there would be a pretty rational explanation. But this is not the case with the released story in question. The observer, Navy pilot David Fravor, hasn't been debunked - there hasn't been even an attempt to do so, like suggesting that the spotted object in the water was actually a whale. So it stands to reason that the intention of the DOD wasn't to undermine the interest in UFO, which is almost extinct anyway.

So what prompted the DOD to do something quite unexpected?

If you happen to catch some of my archive posts, you would learn that the year 2017 marked the 70th anniversary of the Kenneth Arnold sighting, as well as the Roswell UFO crash, with both cases opening the UFO era. So how would the ET's observe the anniversary when all UFO traffic having the only purpose to be seen by us was canceled in 2012?

One way is to temporarily override the decision and lit the skies with something similar to the Phoenix lights, but why bother when there is other, more convenient and more pleasing option?

See, the ET's didn't decide on the cancellation of the UFO effects in 2012; they decided a long time ago, so they had the time to prepare for the event when someone here on earth starts to remind them of the 70th anniversary.

So here is the hypothesis: The ET's made sure that in 2017, the DOD would do something quite unexpected by releasing a UFO related account to the well-respected The New York Times.

But how would one pre-test such a hypothesis?

Well, you need to be familiar with the ET's mind a bit. They, as much as we, know that pilots like to estimate the size of larger objects by comparison to planes. The observing Navy pilot didn't make an exemption.

When the two fighters got to the assigned location, they spotted a disturbance under the water, Fravor said. To him, it looked like something the size of a Boeing 737 airplane was underneath, causing waves to break over it.
http://www.nhangle.com/article/20180116/AGGREGATION/180119455

But there was another mysterious object present, the one which got airborne and which Fravor described thusly:

Fravor said he was on a routine training mission off the coast of California when he witnessed a 40-foot “wingless object” that he described as a Tic Tac.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/12/19/stunning-ufo-encounter-by-us-navy-pilot-it-was-not-from-this-world.html

So you have something the size of Boeing 737 and another something, a wingless object 40 feet long. It's obvious that you need to convert to common unit of length.

The Boeing 737 is a short-to-medium-range twinjet narrow-body airliner developed and manufactured by Boeing Commercial Airplanes in the United States. Wikipedia
Wingspan: 117′ 0″
Length: 110′


As it stands, this is the length of two mysterious objects that Navy pilot David Fravor described:

Submerged object: 110'
"Tic Tac" object: 40'


That means the length difference between both objects is

110 - 40 = 70

Okay. And so what?

Happy 70th anniversary of the beginning of the UFO era, Nyx.

(You should tell the esteemed Forum the truth - the whole truth. It's not much about what you saw, but what you saw and started shooting at. The ET's just wanted you to fill a questionaire - they were short of human UFO pilots and were hiring.)

One coincidence cannot decide the case, though. There is more coming and when you put math on it, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of the case whereby the ET's hacked the mind of the Pentagon folks and made them release an account of a UFO sighting, which they prepared in 2004 not only for the upcoming Indonesian tsunami event, but also for the case someone on Earth mentions the 70th anniversary. (Yes, they can read the Internet gibberish.)


User IP Logged

Swamprat
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4460
xx Re: NYT Puts Big Article Out On Pentagon UFO Fundi
« Reply #79 on: Feb 2nd, 2018, 8:27pm »

'US Government has 'crystal clear pics of UFOs chased by military' claims former insider

THE US Government is keeping "crystal-clear" images of "real UFOs" chased by military pilots from public view it was sensationally claimed today.

By Jon Austin
Published: Feb 2, 2018

Nick Pope, a former investigator of the UFO phenomenon for the British MoD, was reacting to claims made by experts that recent "UFO" footage released by the US Government was probably just a plane.

Yesterday, Express.co.uk revealed that in a radio podcast of the Big Picture Science Skeptic Check, produced at the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute, a panel of experts looked at the shocking radar video footage and the consensus was the object shown was just infrared heat from plane engines misidentified by US Navy pilots.

The US-based SETI Institute is a collective of scientists looking for evidence of alien life in the cosmos.

However, Mr Pope argued the footage should not be dismissed by SETI so readily.

He said: "I saw the SETI Institute's sceptical comments about the Pentagon UFO videos and thought I'd chip in, as I think they've misunderstood or failed to take account of something fairly important about this.

"While I agree that the videos themselves don't prove anything, I think the criticism of them is based on a misunderstanding. What many people don't seem to appreciate is that these videos haven't been illegally leaked - they've been declassified and legitimately placed into the public domain.

"Self-evidently, therefore, there's nothing in them that the US government, military or intelligence community regards as particularly sensitive.

"Yes, it's a big deal that military jets were chasing these objects, but while they weren't able to catch or identify them, the videos in and of themselves don't prove the pilots encountered extraterrestrial spacecraft.

"The real issue relates not to the grainy imagery that's been released to the world, but to the classified analyses that will have been undertaken by intelligence staff.

"When I worked on the MoD's UFO project we received a steady stream of photographs and films from the public, and from time to time, over the years, RAF pilots encountered UFOs and sometimes managed to get some gun camera footage.

"We'd send this material to the Defence Intelligence Staff and to a unit called the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre (now subsumed within the Defence Geospatial Intelligence Fusion Centre at RAF Wyton).

"These imagery analysts are very bright people and have tremendously sophisticated tools at their disposal to enhance and analyse photos and videos.

"This is exactly what AATIP and other US intelligence community personnel will have done with these UFO videos, using their own IMINT (imagery intelligence) specialists.

"The detailed results of these analyses, perhaps including enhanced, crystal clear images of what the pilots encountered, haven't yet been made public, and may never see the light of day.

"In summary, sceptics may not be impressed by the blurry videos that have been made public - and I take their point - but somewhere in the US intelligence community there will be considerably more impressive material.

"However, whether any of this can be declassified and made public remains to be seen."

The video made global headlines in December, when a New York Times article revealed the existence of a top-secret US Department of Defense department which investigated the UFO phenomenon for five years from 2007 to 2012.

The Advanced Aerial Threat Identification program (AATIP) had a £16million budget to investigate any threat posed by unidentified objects observed by the military.

It was headed by Luis Elizondo, who resigned from the DoD last October to help set up the To The Stars Academy with former Blink 182 singer Tom DeLonge to further UFO research privately.

The article also revealed the radar camera footage from a US Navy aircraft flying off the coast of San Diego in November 2004, which was said to show a UFO that "defied physics."

This footage was part of the so-called Nimitz UFO incident, in which several US Navy personnel reported seeing several tic-tac shaped UFOs over the sea, a case that was investigated by the AATIP.

Mr Elizondo later went on record to say the case, and others looked at by the AATIP, showed "there was very compelling evidence that we are not alone”.

Other debunkers have agreed it could well be a plane.

UFO believers discussing the SETI broadcast on debate website Reddit.com were not amused by the claims.

One posted today: "So our naval pilots are not trained or experienced enough not to be surprised and shocked by what are almost certainly distant jet exhausts?

"Also, he said 'the apparent strange movement of the object was just the camera itself moving, and the banking of the plane in pursuit.'

"Likely story, guys! Our military pilots are just ignorant potatoes in those cockpits with zero training? We just trust them to operate the most advanced and expensive aircraft known to man, but it's Idiocy up there apparently according to this guy. Give me a break."

Watch Luis' interview:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/913631/Pentagon-UFO-aliens-UG-Government-crystal-clear-image-UFO

User IP Logged

"Let's see what's over there."
Swamprat
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4460
xx Re: NYT Puts Big Article Out On Pentagon UFO Fundi
« Reply #80 on: Feb 3rd, 2018, 09:49am »

The SETI Institute (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) broadcasts a discussion called "Big Picture Science" in an attempt to involve citizens in their program through fund-raising. Every so often, they do a "Skeptic Check" version. This is their latest effort in that area. It is a response to the release of Defense Dept. info on the secret UFO program.

My position continues to be, we must look at THIS "Skeptic Check" edition skeptically. As I've said before, the SETI Institute has to be furious that Bigelow got all that money instead of them. Secondly, if aliens are found to be visiting Earth, SETI is out of a job. Thirdly, because of scientific rigor, peer review, the need for correlation and confirmation, it is difficult for some scientists to think outside the box.



Skeptic Check: New UFO Evidence

SETI Institute, Big Picture Science

Post Date: January 29, 2018

Hosts: Seth Shostak, Molly Bentley

Guests:
James Oberg - Space journalist, historian and former NASA employee
James McGaha - Retired Air Force pilot, astronomer and director of the Grasslands Observatory
Ben Radford - Deputy editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine and a Research Fellow with the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

It was a shocker of a story, splashed across the New York Times front page: The existence of a five-year long, hidden Pentagon investigation of UFOs. With one-third of the American public convinced that aliens are visiting Earth, could this study finally provide the proof?

We consider how this story came to light and what the $22 million program has produced. Does the existence of a secret study mean there’s now decent proof of extraterrestrial craft in our skies? We take a look at the evidence made public so far.

And why, six years after the study ended, are we learning about it now?

Note: When you click on this URL, just below the post date, you will see a tiny "start" triangle. Click on that to listen to the fifty minute discussion:
https://www.seti.org/BiPiSci/newUFOevidence

User IP Logged

"Let's see what's over there."
bonehead
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

"All descriptions of reality are temporary hypotheses."


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1679
xx Re: NYT Puts Big Article Out On Pentagon UFO Fundi
« Reply #81 on: Feb 3rd, 2018, 11:52am »

Thanks Swamp,

HHhhmmm, skeptics that are not the least bit skeptical but, are in fact, true believers that UFOs are nothing but hogwash.

That is not a skeptical position, but a position of true belief. Hello? A negative belief is still a belief!

UFO skeptics are the same as atheists: they dis-believe in the reality of a questioned thing. A true skeptic would question that belief as well. Skepticism is a position of not knowing - not a position of thinking you know it all. But these so-called skeptics never question their own beliefs. Thus they are not skeptics at a all. The whole concept of professional skepticism, which these folks practice, is little more than a materialist "cult". They are simply religious fanatics denigrating all those that refuse to join them in their chosen religion.

Because people are not taught how to think or where there thoughts come from (or that such thoughts are not actually pictures of a presumed "material reality", but simply subjective beliefs about the same) - we are constantly bombarded with the idea that a materialist bias (i. e. a negative position on the so-called "supernatural" or immaterial in general) marks these narrow-minded fanatics as "rational". The fact is their beliefs are neither rational nor skeptical, but merely the proselytizing of scientistic priests whose materialist belief system is still fashionable, despite the fact that quantum physics put the lie to Rational Materialism nearly 100 years ago!

To quote pioneering quantum physicist Neils Bohr, "Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." That quote and the quantum mechanics that informed it, put rational materialism in a more "realistic" perspective. If our proclaimed "reality" is but an illusion, as Bohr suggests, then all epistemologies based on the "realness" of the material world are out of touch.

If they actually thought about their thinking, this would become obvious to them. But we live in a culture that, ever increasingly, rewards ignorance. Just look at the news if you need an example.... tongue

Bonehead
« Last Edit: Feb 3rd, 2018, 11:53am by bonehead » User IP Logged

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."
ALBERT EINSTEIN
INT21
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 3202
xx Re: NYT Puts Big Article Out On Pentagon UFO Fundi
« Reply #82 on: Feb 5th, 2018, 05:43am »

Bonehead,

..UFO skeptics are the same as atheists: they dis-believe in the reality of a questioned thing. ..

Looks like you didn't think it through.

A UFO skeptic will accept that, based on the available evidence, there MAY be something there.

An atheist will ask for some kind of proof of the existence of a deity and not be at all surprised when no one can provide it.

Because it isn't there unless you want to believe it is.

Two very different positions.

In a way religion is a rather like the Bitcoin.

A construct based on nothing that some people will get rich on but many more will get conned.

HAL
INT21

User IP Logged

Isn't it midnight, on the other side of the world.
Do you remember
the face of a pretty girl ?
bonehead
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

"All descriptions of reality are temporary hypotheses."


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1679
xx Re: NYT Puts Big Article Out On Pentagon UFO Fundi
« Reply #83 on: Feb 7th, 2018, 10:59am »

Hal,

I stand by my sentence:

"UFO skeptics are the same as atheists: they dis-believe in the reality of a questioned thing."

You can split hairs if you like but for the case of my argument, Atheism is a disbelief just as the so-called "skeptics" that disbelieve in the immaterial or "paranormal". They are both reactionary beliefs that rely on the definition of the thing they disbelieve in for the substance of their belief.

No God, no atheists. No UFOs, no UFO skeptics. An anti-belief is always reactionary and always assumes, a-priori, that the thing being disbelieved is understood by those they sell their questionable beliefs to.

It can be compared to the popular scientistic admonition against "intelligent design". To take the spin off the term lets call it "coherent order" (since it means essentially the same thing). If there is no 'coherent order' to the universe, then science has nothing to study. That is because science occupies itself with understanding the order and structure of the universe. Eliminate coherent order in the universe, then we would be talking chaos and ennui and entropy.

If the universe had no intelligent design then science would have nothing to study! It is as simple as that. I find it baffling that presumably rational people could even offer up such an oxymoronic argument. It shows that they are not using rationalism to arrive at their conclusion. Rather, it is a position formed by emotion and belief. It does not even qualify as "pseudo-science". It is, unquestionably, anti-scientific.....

rolleyes

Bonehead
« Last Edit: Feb 7th, 2018, 11:40am by bonehead » User IP Logged

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."
ALBERT EINSTEIN
INT21
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 3202
xx Re: NYT Puts Big Article Out On Pentagon UFO Fundi
« Reply #84 on: Feb 7th, 2018, 2:34pm »

Bonehead,

..It can be compared to the popular scientistic admonition against "intelligent design". To take the spin off the term lets call it "coherent order" (since it means essentially the same thing). ..

Not the same thing at all.

Intelligent design suggests there is an 'intelligence' behind it. Something that organised the whole thing. An intent by some power unknown (and probably unknowable) to create what we perceive.

Coherent order simply means that things appear to have some kind of order. It could all simply be accidental. What we perceive is just what dropped out after some event somewhere. Or maybe it always was as it is now.

I have to split hairs with you on the atheist thing.

It is not a disbelief. To atheists, like myself, the whole question of gods is simply a non issue. It is essential for billions of people. But for myself, if I hadn't been forced to take the usual indoctrination when a child the idea of a deity would never have crossed my mind. There simply is no evidence for one.

And really, going by this God's record so far, who would want one ?

HAL
INT21
User IP Logged

Isn't it midnight, on the other side of the world.
Do you remember
the face of a pretty girl ?
Swamprat
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4460
xx Re: NYT Puts Big Article Out On Pentagon UFO Fundi
« Reply #85 on: Feb 8th, 2018, 1:13pm »

Again, speaking of skeptics like Shostak, McGaha, and Oberg, I found this quote interesting:


Quote of the day

“Pursuing the life of the mind comes with emotional costs. Academics spend so much time being skeptical of one another’s ideas that it becomes natural to be skeptical toward each other.”

Humanities researcher Douglas Dowland calls for academics to band together and take a more sympathetic approach to their fellows. (Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education)

https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-Academe-Breeds-/242394?key=70HgvoEnZjsl3x6mXiP7OGYDWRJA6ksZGExH9sYqA9MsuntYi7LL0X-8rMa-rj2PQVFwcnNEdDdDZmgwRU55djJOb21DS0RzaE54eEZXMkxXbk5qek44aDBraw

User IP Logged

"Let's see what's over there."
bonehead
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

"All descriptions of reality are temporary hypotheses."


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1679
xx Re: NYT Puts Big Article Out On Pentagon UFO Fundi
« Reply #86 on: Feb 10th, 2018, 12:34pm »

on Feb 7th, 2018, 2:34pm, INT21 wrote:
Bonehead,

..It can be compared to the popular scientistic admonition against "intelligent design". To take the spin off the term lets call it "coherent order" (since it means essentially the same thing). ..

Not the same thing at all.

Intelligent design suggests there is an 'intelligence' behind it. Something that organised the whole thing. An intent by some power unknown (and probably unknowable) to create what we perceive.

Coherent order simply means that things appear to have some kind of order. It could all simply be accidental. What we perceive is just what dropped out after some event somewhere. Or maybe it always was as it is now.


Thanks Hal.

Coherence, in this context, is the same as intelligence because it sets up a comprehensive grouping of qualities that operate in a logical orderly way. In other words, it is an organized system that can be expected to act in predictable ways. Whether you believe such a system arose spontaneously or was inspired by a creator, there can be no question that such systems show intelligent design. The systems are logical and orderly. I do not see how such coherence can be a result of chance or caprice. As one fellow once put it: it is like a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and creating a functional airplane. The "chances" of such a thing happening are so astronomically unlikely that the belief fails on mathematical grounds alone.

As an agnostic, I do not necessarily apply a generative "creator" to the presence of such systems. But their very orderliness and consistence are undeniably the result of a consistent ordering principal or intelligence. To deny the universe its intelligent design its to simply ignore the facts presented before your very eyes. Scientists that dispute the inherent intelligence of nature are like golfers that deny golf courses: they deny the very thing that makes their pursuit possible.

Sorry, as far as i see it, that epistemic position is not the result of rationalism. It is the result of ignorance inspired by post modern anti-religious sentiment. You cannot ferret out the workings of a system (the sole activity of science) without acknowledging that the system is coherent. But those denying the intelligent ordering of the universe deny the very thing they study.

How is that rational or even logically supportable?


on Feb 7th, 2018, 2:34pm, INT21 wrote:
I have to split hairs with you on the atheist thing.

It is not a disbelief. To atheists, like myself, the whole question of gods is simply a non issue. It is essential for billions of people. But for myself, if I hadn't been forced to take the usual indoctrination when a child the idea of a deity would never have crossed my mind. There simply is no evidence for one.

And really, going by this God's record so far, who would want one ?

HAL
INT21


Without an understanding of the definition of "God" atheism has no meaning whatsoever. That is why I say it is reactionary. it is a response to the concept of god. No God, no atheism. That was my original argument.

Interestingly, I see that you and I are not so far apart in what we believe. Like you, I developed an early dislike of established religion. What a load of BS. Somebody hands you a pre-packaged belief system and we are supposed to just blithely and unquestioningly accept it like "manna from heaven". If their belief system were so great, then why do they have to resort to brainwash techniques to get you onboard? I also objected to the seemingly intellectually lazy act of simply accepting a belief system because somebody told you to. I always preferred to find my own way, blazing trails and learning on my own. Needless to say, their brainwash failed with me.

In younger days, I too called myself an atheist. But I never really was comfortable with the implications of that belief. It wasn't the idea of a higher power that I rejected. I always accepted that the universe was bigger and more complex than my little pea-brain could hope to fully comprehend. It was the narrow self-serving way religion presented their "god" that ruffled my feathers. It is presumptuous of religion to tell me how to think about the universe and whatever greater force that inspired it.

And there is the only difference between your position and mine: I accept the idea of an ordering principal to the universe. Order does not spontaneously emerge from chaos. You cannot design a spoon, a bicycle, a building or a Hadron super-collider without a plan. Every engineer understands this.

You also cannot have an eco-system or a dragonfly without a design. A dragonfly has a basic design. All dragonflies comply with the details of that basic design. That is why they are all, more or less, similar. That fact is an expression of coherence. Doesn't it defy one of the basic laws of physics for coherence to emerge from chaos and disorder?

So, you tell me, other than the resulting form, how is the design of a dragonfly different from the design of a Lamborghini? I know the Lambo had a plan. Looking at the miracle of a dragonfly, I say that it also has a generative design plan (but probably not on a piece of paper).

And that has nothing to do with my feelings about religion....

Cheers!! grin

Bonehead (happily agnostic)
« Last Edit: Feb 10th, 2018, 1:01pm by bonehead » User IP Logged

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."
ALBERT EINSTEIN
ZETAR
Mod Director
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

GREAT SPIRITS ALWAYS ENCOUNTER THE MOST VIOLENT OPPOSITION FROM MEDIOCRE MINDS E=MC2


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 8649
xx Re: NYT Puts Big Article Out On Pentagon UFO Fundi
« Reply #87 on: Feb 10th, 2018, 1:25pm »

SEEMS BONEY IS ON TO SUMPTIN...STIRRING THE DISCUSSION IN THAT SOCRATIC METHOD WHICH I'M QUITE FOND OF grin

INTELLIGENT DESIGN?
User Image

INTELLIGENT DESIGN?
User Image

SHALOM...Z

EDIT TO ADD:

INTELLIGENT DESIGN?
User Image
« Last Edit: Feb 10th, 2018, 1:37pm by ZETAR » User IP Logged

GREAT SPIRITS ALWAYS ENCOUNTER THE MOST VIOLENT OPPOSITION FROM MEDIOCRE MINDS E=MC2
INT21
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 3202
xx Re: NYT Puts Big Article Out On Pentagon UFO Fundi
« Reply #88 on: Feb 10th, 2018, 3:07pm »

Bonehead,

..Order does not spontaneously emerge from chaos...

So you do not believe in the big Bang theory ?


..You cannot ferret out the workings of a system (the sole activity of science) without acknowledging that the system is coherent...

This goes out of the window with Heisenberg.

When, as I believe you know, one gets down to squiggly things below the quark level then all bets are off. One simply cannot know anything beyond that.

Things apparently (maybe I should say mathematically) exist and do not exist at the same time. Any attempt to reason beyond this point is useless.

We simply do not know. So if there was some kind of 'Final Mind' that is creating/controlling all this then it is unknowable to us.

We, as humans, and everything around us are simply waves with lots of nothing in between. And the waves are both there and not there.

HAL
INT21
User IP Logged

Isn't it midnight, on the other side of the world.
Do you remember
the face of a pretty girl ?
Sys_Config
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Someone is Messing With Force


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 5555
xx Re: NYT Puts Big Article Out On Pentagon UFO Fundi
« Reply #89 on: Feb 10th, 2018, 8:21pm »

I don't believe in the big bang if only because no one heard it or explain what that sounded like..unlike the falling tree comparisons..what if all particles are simply particles of thought?
User IP Logged

Breaking the Matrix ..More than UFO related..Its Life Related
http://ufotrail.blogspot.com/
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7  Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Become a member of the UFO Casebook Forum today and join our more than 19,000 members.

Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

Donate $6.99 for 50,000 Ad-Free Pageviews!

| |

This forum powered for FREE by Conforums ©
Sign up for your own Free Message Board today!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Conforums Support | Parental Controls