So a few posts ago you were

I am 95% certain that aliens have visited Earth and are making some form of contact.

And now your stating...

They're not "hiding" from us, they're just not making contact

Which is it?

I don't think those sentences contradict each other tho

The latter is an explanation as to what they appear to be doing. The former is a statement as to how likely they are would be to be doing it in the 1st place.

Funnily, there are numerous stories of aliens actually making contact with humans, but one supposes NA doesn't give those much credit...

NeedAnswers wrote:

rainbow wrote:Still nobody seems to be able to explain why these Aliens want to hide from us in the first place.

Why don't you think for yourself for once? They're not "hiding" from us, they're just not making contact. Combine that with the FACT that countries have scrambled F-16's and other planes at them since the 1940's, and shots have actually been fired at them, and are you really surprised that they don't want to talk right now?

OK, so they're sulking.
A perfectly good explanation.
Thanks!

NeedAnswers wrote:

Darkchilde wrote:Even if you are claiming that you think they are real, you still have to provide the evidence because it is your claim, not mine. You have claim X, you provide the evidence.

Wrong. You are not a scientific panel. I don't have to provide any evidence to you, it's not my job because I'm not trying to convince you. I made the claim that I am satisfied with the evidence that I have seen. Why do I have to provide you the evidence of something that I personally think is true? That's ridiculous, and you're inflating your ego if you think you can just come to a thread like this and push everyone on the opposing side to provide all the evidence while you refuse to accept any of it and don't do anything of your own.

You are the one who is wrong NeedAnswers. Let's just take this one step at the time shall we?

Are you claiming that aliens visit the Earth? Yes or No?
If you are, then the onus is on you to provide evidence. Otherwise, there is no reason for me to do any further research. Up to now, you have not provided any evidence that even remotely convinces me that aliens may be visiting Earth. Without said evidence, I will not lose my time and do any further research. You want to call me lazy? Do it, but I am not the one who is lazy. I just prefer spending my time doing research on subjects whose premises I accept, like actual physics and mathematics.

If I am to look further, then I need something that will convince me that this is worth doing it. If all you have is anecdotal evidence, blurry photos and youtube videos, as well as conflicting accounts and just unexplained phenomena that could be anything at all, then no, I am not convinced.

Furthermore, why should I accept your words at face value? Why should I accept anything you say as being true, without any evidence? You are just a person on the net, and can be claiming any shit you want, just as I can. And even if you were someone I know, I would still require evidence to accept your basic premise.

It does not matter whether we are a scientific panel or not. I do not accept anything at face value, I require evidence. If someone came to you, gave you a bottle with something that looks like water and claimed that it is magic water that cures cancer, would you believe him? Would you accept his claim? Or would you require evidence? Same thing here. Any person claiming X, for me, has to provide evidence for his claims.

I do not accept your evidence, because simply it is not evidence for aliens visiting the Earth. I accept that it is evidence of unexplained phenomena, which could be anything, even aliens visiting the Earth. I never denied that possibility; I am simply saying, that what you have given us up to now does not lead to the conclusion of aliens visiting the Earth.

As I have said before, I accept the possibility and probability of alien life. I am convinced that there is life out there in space, I am just not convinced that this life is visiting the Earth.

The rest of your post is just more of the same of your first paragraph, so I think that my answer here covers it.

Latest: FBI unseen documents released

They were described as being circular in shape with raised centers, approximately 50 feet in diameter. Each one was occupied by three bodies of human shape but only 3 feet tall, dressed in metallic cloth of a very fine texture. Each body was bandaged in a manner similar to the blackout suits used by speed flyers and test pilots

the_5th_ape wrote:Latest: FBI unseen documents released

They were described as being circular in shape with raised centers, approximately 50 feet in diameter. Each one was occupied by three bodies of human shape but only 3 feet tall, dressed in metallic cloth of a very fine texture. Each body was bandaged in a manner similar to the blackout suits used by speed flyers and test pilots

http://vault.fbi.gov/Roswell%20UFO/Roswell%20UFO%20Part%201%20of%201/view?searchterm=Roswell

Conflicting accounts. Something happened, but not necessarily aliens. Could be weather balloons, could be a military aircraft (and notice that without the wings, all planes are cylindrical in shape...), could be anything again. As for the bodies and the metallic cloth, seeing it from a distance and from some angles, the eyes can be easily deceived.

tnjrp wrote:I don't think those sentences contradict each other tho

The latter is an explanation as to what they appear to be doing. The former is a statement as to how likely they are would be to be doing it in the 1st place.

If they not making contact out of hubris, then how can one deduce that the probability that they are making some form of contact is approaching one?

Obviously simply manifesting themselves doesn't construe 'contact', because TA has stated that contact has not occured due to the negative reaction to that manifestation.

Funnily, there are numerous stories of aliens actually making contact with humans, but one supposes NA doesn't give those much credit...

Precisely. I think TA needs to formally define 'contact'.

BlackBart wrote:Obviously simply manifesting themselves doesn't construe 'contact', because TA has stated that contact has not occured due to the negative reaction to that manifestation.

Yes, yes but it has been explained now.
They did make contact, then we shot at them, now they're cross with us.

What would you do if you'd travelled for like centuries to get to another planet, and then the nasty blighters attack you instead of laying out the red carpet.
You'd be mightily peed off, I'm sure.


It all makes sense now...

BlackBart wrote:If they not making contact out of hubris, then how can one deduce that the probability that they are making some form of contact is approaching one? [...] I think NA needs to formally define 'contact'.

Yeah, I figure he's talking about two different levels of contact. The first would be about the same as David Attenborough has with animals in his documentaries -- he interacts with them a little bit but doesn't really, on the whole, attempt to communicate with them (there are some exceptions, as I need to point out lest it's pointed out to me). The second form would be the actual talking-to type of contact many witnesses insist on has happened to them (possibly with or without subsequent or previous anal probing, sexual intercourse or whatever), even repeatedly over a period of many years.

But perhaps it's best if NA explains himself, that was just the impression I got

rainbow wrote:

BlackBart wrote:Obviously simply manifesting themselves doesn't construe 'contact', because TA has stated that contact has not occured due to the negative reaction to that manifestation.

Yes, yes but it has been explained now.
They did make contact, then we shot at them, now they're cross with us.

What would you do if you'd travelled for like centuries to get to another planet, and then the nasty blighters attack you instead of laying out the red carpet.
You'd be mightily peed off, I'm sure.


It all makes sense now...

But they have super-duper shooty proof spaceships! Our puny earth weapons are but toys compared to their technology...

According to Mr. [redacted] informant, the saucers were found in New Mexico due to the fact that the Government has a very high-powered radar set-up in that area and it is believed the radar interferes with the controlling mechanism of the saucers. No further evaluation was attempted by SA [redacted] concerning the above."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/04/ ... 1-records/

Or not...

Depending on who you ask... The aliens are as far superior to us, or not, as each argument calls for

BlackBart wrote:Or not...

Clearly you are making the erroneous assumption that all Aliens are the same. Obviously the ones that fell out of the skies were less advanced than the ones with invisible shielding technology and super fast ships and inpenetrable hulls.
No, these would've been much less sophisticated.
Obviously they would've taken thousands of years to get here, and you can imagine how upset they are with us.

rainbow wrote:

BlackBart wrote:Or not...

Clearly you are making the erroneous assumption that all Aliens are the same. Obviously the ones that fell out of the skies were less advanced than the ones with invisible shielding technology and super fast ships and inpenetrable hulls.
No, these would've been much less sophisticated.
Obviously they would've taken thousands of years to get here, and you can imagine how upset they are with us.

Serves the silly buggers right. Showing up unannounced and poking at nuclear reactors. What did they fucking expect?

Did David Attenborough travel all that way to Africa, run into a Silverback Gorilla's habitat waving a flare and parping a vuvuzela? No. Did he poke it in the cojones and then sulk when it got upset about it? No. Would he have done this if he'd been wearing a super-duper suit of Gorilla proof armour? No.

As always, you come up with sensible answers to my objections

I still don't get the anal probe thing though. Can you help

rainbow wrote:As always, you come up with sensible answers to my objections

I still don't get the anal probe thing though. Can you help

Have you tried butter? It worked for Marlon Brando.

BlackBart wrote:

rainbow wrote:As always, you come up with sensible answers to my objections

I still don't get the anal probe thing though. Can you help

Have you tried butter? It worked for Marlon Brando.

I had always suspected that he was a shape-shifter. This confirms it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq-n0TmWkG4[/youtube]


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf86C0xC79g[/youtube]


AMAZING FOOTAGE. NeedAnswers, check this out buddy

BlackBart wrote:So a few posts ago you were

I am 95% certain that aliens have visited Earth and are making some form of contact.

And now your stating...

They're not "hiding" from us, they're just not making contact

Which is it?

Oy.

Making some form of contact as in they're showing up here, they're letting us see that they exist. "Not making contact" as in "They're not landing on our doorsteps trying to sell us cosmic Borg-scout cookies".

Is that more clear? I do see how I smudged it up.

rainbow wrote:

NeedAnswers wrote:

rainbow wrote:Still nobody seems to be able to explain why these Aliens want to hide from us in the first place.

Why don't you think for yourself for once? They're not "hiding" from us, they're just not making contact. Combine that with the FACT that countries have scrambled F-16's and other planes at them since the 1940's, and shots have actually been fired at them, and are you really surprised that they don't want to talk right now?

OK, so they're sulking.
A perfectly good explanation.
Thanks!

Good one.

Darkchilde wrote:
Are you claiming that aliens visit the Earth? Yes or No?

I'm not making a claim. I'm saying "I think aliens are visiting Earth." That does not put me in a contractual debate form where I must absolutely prove without a shadow of a doubt that aliens are visiting Earth. It means I am convinced by what I have seen that aliens are real and they are visiting Earth. It's like the difference between asking a preacher to prove God exists because he is telling everyone that he does, and asking one of his constituents to prove he exists simply because he believes the "evidence" for the existence of God. I don't have all the evidence that many UFOlogists have, but I have seen their evidence and I am convinced by it.

I already told you I can't replicate all of that evidence, it has been years' worth of studying, reading, and watching videos and documentaries. I can't do all that for you, especially if you can't watch videos right now. I can only provide you with some of the evidence that has convinced me, but I can't replicate the anecdotal evidence that I've seen with my own two eyes in any respectable way.

Darkchilde wrote:Otherwise, there is no reason for me to do any further research. Up to now, you have not provided any evidence that even remotely convinces me that aliens may be visiting Earth. Without said evidence, I will not lose my time and do any further research. You want to call me lazy? Do it, but I am not the one who is lazy. I just prefer spending my time doing research on subjects whose premises I accept, like actual physics and mathematics.

That is incredibly lazy. You don't accept the premise that aliens are visiting Earth, but you want me to prove to you that they are. I've told you several times, if you're coming in here to debate you're not going to get much from this thread. Don't stay here, don't waste your time. However, you must have some agenda for staying here all this time, knowing that you won't be convinced by anything that I show you, and yet putting the responsibility on me to do the impossible. If you won't do the research into the subject, you will not learn anything. Therefore, any further posts from you in this thread for as long as you refuse to go to the next step are a waste of your time.

Darkchilde wrote:If I am to look further, then I need something that will convince me that this is worth doing it. If all you have is anecdotal evidence, blurry photos and youtube videos, as well as conflicting accounts and just unexplained phenomena that could be anything at all, then no, I am not convinced.

If 11 million people all said there was something in the sky right above your head, you wouldn't look. Otherwise, you're being a tad bit too strict about what kind of evidence that you will accept to prove that something is real.

Darkchilde wrote:Furthermore, why should I accept your words at face value? Why should I accept anything you say as being true, without any evidence? You are just a person on the net, and can be claiming any shit you want, just as I can. And even if you were someone I know, I would still require evidence to accept your basic premise.

I have used nothing but reason and given you links that explain the way that I feel about this. Why should you accept what anyone on this forum says? Why should you accept anything on the internet, it could all be lies and anecdotal evidence right? Why should you accept what a news report says? Why should you accept that if people told you there was an earthquake, and you saw pictures of dusted buildings and people trapped under them, and you heard the cries of those people, why should any of that be real? It takes a lot of guts to discredit hundreds of thousands of people's eyes and ears, even those who are trained professionals, and say they were all hallucinating or seeing things. It takes a lot of trust to believe that even though the government has covered up so much of this stuff, and even though they've lied and changed their story about this, that nothing is going on.

Darkchilde wrote:
It does not matter whether we are a scientific panel or not. I do not accept anything at face value, I require evidence. If someone came to you, gave you a bottle with something that looks like water and claimed that it is magic water that cures cancer, would you believe him? Would you accept his claim? Or would you require evidence? Same thing here. Any person claiming X, for me, has to provide evidence for his claims.

That's true. I would like to see the reasons why he believes that water cures cancer. Any people who once had cancer who don't anymore? Lots of them? Really? Well okay then I guess your magic water cures cancer.

Darkchilde wrote:
I do not accept your evidence, because simply it is not evidence for aliens visiting the Earth. I accept that it is evidence of unexplained phenomena, which could be anything, even aliens visiting the Earth. I never denied that possibility; I am simply saying, that what you have given us up to now does not lead to the conclusion of aliens visiting the Earth.

I never said that it lead firmly to that conclusion, which is why I have said I don't have proof for you. What I will say is that when many other terrestrial things have been ruled out, the extraterrestrial is my next logical move.

Darkchilde wrote:As I have said before, I accept the possibility and probability of alien life. I am convinced that there is life out there in space, I am just not convinced that this life is visiting the Earth.

That's fine, and I respect people who feel that way. Reason why I don't respect your position on this is because you haven't done any work, and you're just taking the safe route.

rainbow wrote:

BlackBart wrote:Obviously simply manifesting themselves doesn't construe 'contact', because TA has stated that contact has not occured due to the negative reaction to that manifestation.

Yes, yes but it has been explained now.
They did make contact, then we shot at them, now they're cross with us.

What would you do if you'd travelled for like centuries to get to another planet, and then the nasty blighters attack you instead of laying out the red carpet.
You'd be mightily peed off, I'm sure.


It all makes sense now...

I didn't say that they came and expected us to lay out the red carpet. I said that they came here, we shot at them, so that might be one reason why they are not making formal contact with us. It's like saying you don't exist because nobody knows you, when you came close to the playground/office someone shot and you and chased you away, and now you really don't exist because you won't come to the playground/office anymore

Also, you're imagining that they've traveled for centuries. What if they had a base relatively close by? What if their means of travel allowed them to traverse distances of light-years in mere moments, or even hours?

tnjrp wrote:

BlackBart wrote:If they not making contact out of hubris, then how can one deduce that the probability that they are making some form of contact is approaching one? [...] I think NA needs to formally define 'contact'.

Yeah, I figure he's talking about two different levels of contact. The first would be about the same as David Attenborough has with animals in his documentaries -- he interacts with them a little bit but doesn't really, on the whole, attempt to communicate with them (there are some exceptions, as I need to point out lest it's pointed out to me). The second form would be the actual talking-to type of contact many witnesses insist on has happened to them (possibly with or without subsequent or previous anal probing, sexual intercourse or whatever), even repeatedly over a period of many years.

But perhaps it's best if NA explains himself, that was just the impression I got

Thank you, you've been incredibly thoughtful in giving me the benefit of the doubt here. That's nearly exactly what I meant, and I believe I explained it in my own words at the beginning of my post

the_5th_ape wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq-n0TmWkG4[/youtube]


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf86C0xC79g[/youtube]


AMAZING FOOTAGE. NeedAnswers, check this out buddy

While these are interesting, I do have some problems with them.

The first one for instance, I rarely trust anything done on April Fools Day. If the world ended on April Fools Day, I wouldn't believe it. Also, I've never really had to manage a camera on something far away like that before, but it's a little upsetting that the person taking the shots has such wavy, unprofessional hands. The "craft" itself truly is magnificent to see, however I'd like to take a further look at the video on youtube where I can get some info and possibly track the location and see if I can find anything corresponding on the MUFON website.

The second one is tough for me to decide on. Parts of the video are sped up. The lights at the base of the volcano appear to me to be vehicles with their high-lights on as they are driving through some very dark areas. Whatever's in the water, I don't know about that. That ones is more interesting than what I was seeing in the sky, which I can't explain because the video was done from so far away and there's just not telling. I would need further information on that one as well before I could make a good judgment.

Thank you for posting videos though, 5th ape

It seems that we are at an impasse, NeedAnswers.

Your basic claim is that you think aliens are visiting Earth, but you refuse to provide evidence. In other words, you want us to believe, to have faith that aliens are visiting Earth without even a shred of evidence. If you really had evidence, then you would provide it.

I don't have anything else to say, If you ever decide to provide evidence of aliens, I will examine it with an open mind. But as I said, youtube videos, blurry photos and anecdotal evidence is not acceptable.