70 replies to this topic 1 votes

[Hum]

Astra.Xtreme, on 14 March 2012 - 15:41, said:

Just remember, things like this are false until proven otherwise.
Is it possible? Yep. Has it been proven true? Nope.
I wouldn't be so quick to abandon hundreds of years of physics due to a few blurry videos of an unexplained video. That's pretty silly actually.

You clearly have much research to do. Or do you enjoy living blind ...

[zeta_immersion]

this got me thinking .. something that I rarely do *think

Why is it that we always assume UFO = live tissue ? ... robots people .. robots

life on earth has evolved for about whatever 1bil years give or take a few ... absolutely nothing special about it ... look at the Geth or Stargate --> will make you a believer

[ILikeTobacco]

quick, on 14 March 2012 - 15:44, said:

I want it to be a UFO, but IMO its just bugs flying past the camera... why do you think there is so many of them. Also if a small bug flies past the camera from a very close distance it will look like its going super fast relative to something way off in the distance like the jets...

So you think 7 different cameras caught bugs on tape that were all in the same position relative to the jets in all three passes of the UFO? If it wasn't for that, I could buy the bug theory but you have to consider that this would have been taken into account by the people analyzing this stuff.

[Astra.Xtreme]

ILikeTobacco, on 14 March 2012 - 15:41, said:

Actually, science works the exact opposite way. We assume something is true until it is proven false because under science, it is not possible to prove something true. It takes 1 test result to prove something false. It takes an infinite amount of test results to prove something absolutely true. That is basic science.

That's half how it works. But with your logic, something unexplained like this is automatically deemed true until we have discrete answers. That's definitely not the case with science.

[Hum]

zeta_immersion, on 14 March 2012 - 15:47, said:

this got me thinking .. something that I rarely do *think

I must congratulate you

[Astra.Xtreme]

Hum, on 14 March 2012 - 15:46, said:

You clearly have much research to do. Or do you enjoy living blind ...

No offense, but you've added nothing to the conversation except make blind accusations towards me.
I showed all the proof you need, so if you can prove otherwise, then be my guest...

I have a background in physics and engineering, so I'm not just blurting out a bunch of crap that I think is true...

[ILikeTobacco]

Astra.Xtreme, on 14 March 2012 - 15:47, said:

That's half how it works. But with your logic, something unexplained like this is automatically deemed true until we have discrete answers. That's definitely not the case with science.

It really is. The only truths we ever have are the when something is proven untrue. Until we can disprove something, we consider it truth. Even the laws of physics. All it takes is one part of the law of physics to be proven untrue and the rest come crashing down with it. That is why the search for the Higgs boson is deemed so important. They still don't know if it is there. The only thing they do know is that if it isn't, the rest of the laws are no longer laws.

Astra.Xtreme, on 14 March 2012 - 15:50, said:

I have a background in physics and engineering, so I'm not just blurting out a bunch of crap that I think is true...

If that were the case, you would know that there have been plenty of experiments proving that entanglement is a means to achieve FTL communication. But you are choosing to ignore those.

[MC GEEK]

FAKE

[Astra.Xtreme]

ILikeTobacco, on 14 March 2012 - 15:52, said:

If that were the case, you would know that there have been plenty of experiments proving that entanglement is a means to achieve FTL communication. But you are choosing to ignore those.

And has FTL communication been achieved? Nooo....
Again, learn how entanglement works. The link I provided clearly spells it out for you.

Also an FYI, for something to be scientifically deemed true, it has to have some proof. A random blurry video isn't proof. Your views on how laws and theories are created is too one-sided. There are bits and pieces you are missing regarding proof of being right and proof of being wrong.

[Lamp0]

Hum, on 14 March 2012 - 15:34, said:

I am refering to the actual craft operated by other intelligent beings, who have gotten here, from there.

There are many witnesses to this fact.

Please don't quote this planet's primative Science.

Just because 'we' don't know how to do something, does not mean other intelligent beings in our galaxy do not.

Hum, on 14 March 2012 - 15:46, said:

You clearly have much research to do. Or do you enjoy living blind ...

Don't be so patronizing.

If you want to believe in all that then fine, but don't get all superior because alot of others see it, with good reason, as typical cultish drivel pandered about by obsessives.

[+abysal]

Astra.Xtreme, on 14 March 2012 - 15:50, said:

No offense, but you've added nothing to the conversation except make blind accusations towards me.
I showed all the proof you need, so if you can prove otherwise, then be my guest...

I have a background in physics and engineering, so I'm not just blurting out a bunch of crap that I think is true...

Maybe once we have a unified theory of everything; including gravity, understand the quantum world (not just guess and make assumptions on statistics), explain certian properties of the universe (why is it expanding? why are galaxies accelerating away from each other, what force is driving that?), maybe then we'll be in a better position to say what is and isn't possible, and trully be a step closer to understanding physics and the universe. Your coming accross as a 'know it all", I think thats why alot of folks have responded a certian way towards your comments. Sorry if I offended you.

As per topic, if the videos are real, it's more likely to be our own experimental air craft then an extraterrestrial UFO.

[ILikeTobacco]

Astra.Xtreme, on 14 March 2012 - 16:01, said:

And has FTL communication been achieved? Nooo....
Again, learn how entanglement works. The link I provided clearly spells it out for you.

Also an FYI, for something to be scientifically deemed true, it has to have some proof. A random blurry video isn't proof. Your views on how laws and theories are created is too one-sided. There are bits and pieces you are missing regarding proof of being right and proof of being wrong.

For someone with all this background, how can you confused the difference between true and probably true. Every science lecture that teachers the scientific method starts with, nothing can ever been proven true. It can only be said to be probably true. There is a huge difference and for someone claiming to be so educated in science, making the claim that something can be proven true points to you actually lying about your educational background/experience.

[Astra.Xtreme]

abysal, on 14 March 2012 - 16:40, said:

Maybe once we have a unified theory of everything; including gravity, understand the quantum world (not just guess and make assumptions on statistics), explain certian properties of the universe (why is it expanding? why are galaxies accelerating away from each other, what force is driving that?), maybe then we'll be in a better position to say what is and isn't possible, and trully be a step closer to understanding physics and the universe. Your coming accross as a 'know it all", I think thats why alot of folks have responded a certian way towards your comments. Sorry if I offended you.

As per topic, if the videos are real, it's more likely to be our own experimental air craft then an extraterrestrial UFO.

I shouldn't be coming off as a "know-it-all" because all I'm doing is correcting people that are saying things that are wrong.
If they're wrong, they're wrong. No reason to get all sour about it and backtalk to the one correcting them.

[+Perfect72]

-UFO Caught on Tape Over Santiago Air Base

-UFO Caught Over Santiago Air Base

-UFO Over Santiago Air Base

-UFO Over Air Base

-UFO : Air Base-

[ILikeTobacco]

abysal, on 14 March 2012 - 16:40, said:

As per topic, if the videos are real, it's more likely to be our own experimental air craft then an extraterrestrial UFO.

Which still makes it a UFO because it hasnt been identified. I would say that anyone who claims UFO's don't exist is a nut case because I can prove that they do with a simple action. Throw large glowing object in the air in the middle of the night. Have your friends watch from far away but close enough to see the light. They can't know what the object is before you throw it. If they can't tell what it is, it is a UFO. Somebody/something knows what it is in this video. As long as we don't know what it is, it is a UFO. Anyone that says UFO's don't exist is saying this video does exist.

Astra.Xtreme, on 14 March 2012 - 16:43, said:

I shouldn't be coming off as a "know-it-all" because all I'm doing is correcting people that are saying things that are wrong.
If they're wrong, they're wrong. No reason to get all sour about it and backtalk to the one correcting them.

You are trying to rewrite how the scientific process works.
You are claiming an article by astronomers disproves proven experiments by physicists on a topic that is about quantum mechanics.

You are doing a terrible job of correcting anybody because your corrections are false.