Quote:
On 2003-03-14 18:05, HankSolo wrote:
Regarding a recovered spacecraft or any sort of hard evidence, any efforts to reverse engineer or otherwise acquire any advantageous information, would be orchestrated by the military... in secret.
|
Adding ellipses after your statement does not make the added prepositional phrase true. Why should they have to do it in secret? Oh wait!
Quote:
|
When in history have we ever divulged information on any potential military vehicle we were developing?
|
Both Germany and the US during World War II talked openly about their plans for developing an atom bomb, for example. The Soviet Union and the United States went as far to have a great Kitchen Debate over whose techonology was better. If anything, history proves my point: while we may develop things in secret, we let people know what we're developing.
Quote:
|
Only after the military has completed its work,
|
Nope, go back and read history. While the details remained secret, the technology's existence was freely shared.
Quote:
|
or deemed the evidence to not have any military value, would anything be released to the public.
|
Again, I must ask, what possible military value would the existence of an alien spacecraft have? Just the plain existence, nothing else.
Quote:
|
There is no precedent for this to make us think otherwise.
|
Well, I have just named you two precendents in recent history, in fact. I think you are out-to-lunch.
Quote:
|
We have no hard evidence that we know of. It's a good bet that if any hard evidence existed, in terms of actual technology, we wouldn't know about it anyway.
|
They could just present it at a press conference. "There is alien technology in this hanger. No you can't look at it." That's all they'd have to do. Of course, then there'd be the moonhoaxers saying that we really didn't find any and it was all staged. Ha ha!
Quote:
|
Therefore, we cannot simply conclude that it does not exist,
|
We can and do because it's preposterous to think otherwise? 50 years? Are you in control of all your faculties? Has anything been kept a secret for 50 years that has been programatic that long? Name ONE thing.
Quote:
|
in the face of so many credible reports.
|
NAME ONE. Stop with the talking out of your posterior and name one. One. One.
Quote:
|
That's like the old saying, "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a noise?".
|
How about if the invisible pink unicorn cannot be seen nor touched nor measured does it exist?
Quote:
|
Nobody should go around and say "UFO's are definitely extra-terrestrial" because we do not know that either.
|
That's for sure.
Quote:
|
But we do know that there have been many mysterious phenomena that has witnessed by credible, knowledgeable people, recorded on audio, video, and radar, and these phenomena in some cases have left behind residual evidence in the form of markings and radiation.
|
Markings... okay. Radiation, huh uh. Again, where's the beef?
Quote:
|
We have never been able to explain them in a believeable way.
|
Name one. One. One.
Quote:
|
When coupled with the belief that there can be highly intelligent life forms out in the universe, and that those 'aliens' may be far more developed technologically than we are, an extra-terrestrial spacecraft as the cause of some of these reports is a legitimate possibility.
|
But these "reports" are all alleged to exist without any tangible proof. You have given us nothing to go on except your own paranoia. That's not very reassuring, Hank.
Quote:
|
To deny this possibility is to say that humans are the pinnacle of life,
|
Absolutely and unequivocally wrong. To deny the possibility is to say we have no evidence. It says nothing about the pinnacle of life status of humanity. This statement is just lunacy.
Quote:
|
Yes, there are questions about the necessary distances to be travelled, and the technology required, but those questions don't invalidate UFO research.
|
I don't even care about that. What I care about is the UFO research providing simple evidence that can be independently verified. That's all. It's really quite simple. It's the same thing I'm asking for Nibiru. Does it exist? Well then, show us the EVIDENCE! That's ALL you need to do. It isn't hard. In fact, it's the easiest thing I can think of.
If I tell you carbon stars exist, you have a right to ask me to show you evidence. I will then give you coordinates for various stars and either you or I can get spectra for them. Then we can discuss what the interpretation of those spectra are. See how simple it is? I make a claim, you ask for the evidence, I give you the evidence, discuss.
What UFO research and Nibiruism amounts to is the following: You make a claim, I ask for evidence, you tell me a story, I say that's not evidence, you say I can't prove it isn't, I say, well, just give me something empirical, you say that you don't believe in empiricism. I throw up my hands. How can we have a conversation?
Quote:
|
If we were to ask someone in the past if travel to the moon was possible, the reaction would be considered the equivalent to the UFO reaction today.
|
However, if said person were here, we could show them the evidence and they could evaluate them. Then they might say it was staged and we'd refer them to this site. See how simple it is? Now why do you UFOlogists refuse to grant the simple request for evidence? How hard can it be?
Quote:
|
So, JS, I view your stance on the subject in the same way you probably view mine.
|
Oh really, you think that I have no empirical evidence showing that the vast majority of UFOs are not of extraterrestrial origins?