http://www.labyrinthina.com/sriyantra.htm

So this is some of the evidence I present that ET remains in hiding and misrepresents what they do. 13.5 acre etching cut 3 inches deep in hard pan dry lakebed. With only a few days for it to have been made.

Two glory seekers came forward and claimed to have made it with a hand plow. Further they claimed it took over a month to do. First point is that it suddenly showed up in its entirty. None of the pilots overflying the area saw a partial construction.

These hoaxers were asked to demonstrate how they did it. They could not get the plow to penetrate more than a quarter of an inch and could only make a short line that they couldnt keep straight.

So how was it done? I propose it as a hoaxed religious symbol created by ET to perpetrate a falsehood for the believers. Many of the believers found it as proof of ET being here to raise our consciousness.

It is a BS created by ET to misdirect as to what their true purpose is. There are foolish believers who want to be abducted and become part of the special chosen few. Please let me be one of the enlightened ones.

If ET had something meaningful to say they wouldn't need to scratch some silly religious symbolism into the dirt. They use the same mentality as a tent revival preacher because so many are such suckers for it. Superior technology used to convince the faithful. They take advantage just like the worst of charletons.

Now here is physical evidence. Evidence of what? Of ET playing us like a user plays his shill.

Find a prosaic explenation that you can prove. Find a way to produce this without bringing in heavy equpment. Something that would leave no evidence behind.

The only reason ET needs these parlor tricks is it makes them seem more powerful than they really are. It is a faith based divide and conquar strategy of BS.

Two glory seekers? The page you linked and others linked from there speak of at least four...

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

Interesting to note the reference to hardness of the soil yet the two investigators left tracks and used that to say how there were none from earthly perps. I would ask if the area is prone to flooding as the google earth search appears to show?

Yes, either the soil was to hard to penetrate or too soft not too leave tracks.
You cannot have it both ways...

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

Well, the other thought as well is if the area floods shallow. Soil soft underneath and does not immediately appear until water has evaporated or drained. Without having any idea's as to the true flight paths and visibility of course.

Bart - I believe you are (yeah good point Don) not going about thinking properly. And everything you state only proves this in my mind. Also you accuse me of pop-psychology. I accuse you of not pseudo-science but outright anti-science. Your methods go flatly against any form of science I've come across.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

Lotus, I much as I might agree, I think you should do an edit on the above post. Folks get banned for saying someone is insane. Apparently no matter how obviously this is the case. I've had several moderator warnings in this regard.

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

June 15 2008, post #63

Methinks this statement was optimistic. 400 posts later, I wonder what is the sense in continuing this thread any further.

It is my understanding this dry lakebed is hardpan with a quarter inch layer that ranges from dry cracked to mud depending on rainfall. Never having been there my self I do not know.

Now you declare this thread as unworthy and should be closed based on your evaluation of my mental state.

If I had dreamed this feature up in a hallucinatory sleep paralyses I would agree.

However from the number of google hits and the attention it is being given by those making it a faith based spirtualistic message I would say the feature is serving its creators as to function.

I ask what is the most sane approach. Bow before it and become enchanted. Act like it dosn't exist and argue about the quality of the mud. Or declare it as a hoax created to mystify the believers.

It is a hoax people. Modern snake oil. Just because the creators of it defy explenation as to how does not make it magic. It just makes them technicly proficient as to sophistication.

Close the thread and put your blinders back on. I no longer care.

Never been there myself (let alone the States) but a quick shufty on google earth and a sniff around the net seems to indicate that H2O does gather in the area? That and the name Basin. More to the story methinks?

It is my understanding that this dry lake bed is in a remote area where the hardpan is covered by a layer of thin mud that ranges from dry to muddy. The first quatar inch ranges from dried and cracked to mud, depending on rainfall etc.

Now you declare the thread should be closed based on my mental state.
If I dreamed this up in a sleep paralyses hallucination I would agree. However from the google hits I would say the feature is serving its creators as to function.

What is the sane approch. Bow befor it and declare its spiritual significance. Act like it does not exist and argue about mud. Or declare it a hoax intended to beguile.

It is a hoax people, modern snake oil. Just because the creators defy explenation does not make it magic. Just a level of technical sophistication. Slight of hand to divert focus. Make them perpetrators seem more powerful than they are.

Put your blinders back on and close the thread, I no longer care.

My connection is screwing up again making me think a post failed and needs retyping. Sorry for the double post.

Bart - we are not arguing that it is a hoax. Most of us agree it is a hoax - where our approaches differ is that your version of the hoax involves aliens and "ours" (for sure mine and at least a large group of others) is that the hoax was made, designed, etc by humans.

Pilots not noticing it is not evidence of aliens. Nor is the material of the ground. As I said we can etch *diamonds*. And that design is on a human scale - meaning it does not in any way preclude humans making it.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

How many pilots were asked and how many pilots flying over bothered to notice?

Did you read the transcript of the Nova program? Did you read about Mack's problems with being able to tell who is confabulating and who is telling the truth?

BTW, still waiting for you to list the abstracts of Mack's work that you read. Tick, tock...the world wonders.

So how was it done? I propose it as a hoaxed religious symbol created by ET...

That's pure conjecture. Attribution is not proof of causation, especially without prima facie proof.

Now here is physical evidence. Evidence of what? Of ET playing us like a user plays his shill.

No, circular reasoning.

Find a prosaic explenation that you can prove.

Show me the ET.

Find a way to produce this without bringing in heavy equpment. Something that would leave no evidence behind.

No. You don't get to assume that your specific hypothesis holds by default while other people must come up with a clearly demonstrable prosaic cause.

You say space aliens made it. You don't get to present that as a rational conclusion until you prove there are space aliens who have testable properties. Then and only then can you start trying to say what those space aliens scratched in the ground.

I asked you a question regarding your study of Clancy. Answer it.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I disagree. If every other rational explanation had been explored and ruled out (which is hardly the case here), I think space aliens would be a reasonable conjecture.

Please note I said conjecture, not conclusion. And note also I did NOT say that rational explanations had been ruled out here. But what you seem to be doing is insisting that space aliens be proven before they can be offered as a possibility...while at the same time rejecting in advance any evidence for them that could come up. I submit that starting with a conclusion and rejecting in advance any evidence that contradicts that conclusion is poor scientific method, worthy of creationists (no offense intended; I am just trying to make a point).

And because I know what will happen here (again), for the record, I have seen NO convincing evidence that space aliens exist, ever, none. I am just not prepared to rule out the possibility that such evidence could be found at some future date; and I certainly don't want to see it rejected before it is even found.

The same thought crossed my mind.

__________________
Olsen the moderator.

I think aliens termed a "reasonable conjecture" for something is on the far side of absurd. It is on equal footing as "a large sub-orbital pasta bowl with a sweet red sauce and basil" being the cause. Except that pasta bowls exist.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

At this stage I agree. My only point is that I think rejecting any future evidence before it is even found is equally absurd.

How many pilots overfly the lakebed? at what altitude and would they be looking atthe ground?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Daffy - okay i gotcha now. I misinterpreted where you were going with it. Also I vote that we now call UFOs "large sub-orbital pasta bowls with sweet red sauce and basil" from now on. It'll avoid confusion with the "ufo as space alien" terminology issue.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

Personally, I prefer space cataracts, but am prepared to go along with your superior terminology.

If every other rational explanation had been explored and ruled out (which is hardly the case here)...

And hardly ever can be. This is why indirect proofs are almost never constructed in the real world. They are, however, popular in pseudoscience because it's easy to create the illusion of rigor with them.

I think space aliens would be a reasonable conjecture. Please note I said conjecture, not conclusion.

Fair enough. It's as good a conjecture as anything. My point is that conjecture is not conclusion, and here as stated is not scientifically testable. I'm hearing you agree with that, which means we're in vehement agreement.

But what you seem to be doing is insisting that space aliens be proven before they can be offered as a possibility...

As a scientifically tenable possibility.

...while at the same time rejecting in advance any evidence for them that could come up.

But the "for them" in that statement is attribution, not causation. That's what makes your approach circular. You can't point to an unexplained phenomenon (or two) and try to explain it by means of space aliens when your proof for the space aliens is the phenomenon itself.

I submit that starting with a conclusion and rejecting in advance any evidence that contradicts that conclusion is poor scientific method...

No. It's poor scientific method to consider as a potential cause for some effect a phenomenon not known to exist and therefore to have unknown, untestable properties. You have to break the cycle of circularity somewhere, and science breaks it by requiring prima facie proof of plausibility (i.e., that the candidate cause exists and has testable properties).

It's really very simple. There are an infinite number of unknown, untestable hypothetical causes. Picking one of them and calling it by a label that alludes to common belief (i.e., in space aliens) does not change its fundamental nature or elevate it to evidentiary plausibility. Hence Nargles.

If you want to consider space aliens as a hypothesis, then throw it in the pile along with all the others. But you don't get to short-circuit the scientific method on its behalf by leaving the testability of the hypothesis so open-ended that it fits the landscape of evidence no matter what the evidence looks like. That's as un-scientific as it gets.

The best way to think about it is to consider a non-affirmative method by which you would prove that some effect was not caused by space aliens. "Non-affirmative" in this case means "not by asserting some other cause instead." For scientific rigor you have to be able to rule out space aliens by the evidence alone.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Overall, I agree with most of your points. However, regarding the "circular logic" example: if suddenly, everyone on earth found themselves instantly transported to other parts of the globe, space aliens would be a reasonable conjecture and hardly "circular." There would be no rational, terrestrial explanation. Obviously I don't expect that to happen...but you can't assume space aliens will always be an irrational conjecture for observed phenomena if you don't know (and you don't) what those phenomena will be.

As I said before, I don't expect such evidence to crop up (pun intentional), but I am not prepared to dismiss it in advance. You gotta admit, it would be way cool (as long as they didn't come with cook books).

On the other hand, since I consider the chance of such evidence appearing to be just this side of Pat Robertson shaving his head and becoming a Hare Krishna, I don't suppose I will have the chance to put my claim to use in the real word any time soon.

I asked you a question regarding your study of Clancy. Answer it.

Not sure I understand what answer you are looking for? There were three study groups. Those claiming abduction. Those only suspecting it but not investigated. Those specificly not involved in abduction.

Method of study was word association and recall.

Data and study seem well organized with very objective approach that established abduction claiments as more prone to false memory.

I have no problem with the data or the study. My assertian is that assumption was to prove a prosaic foundation for. This makes the conclusion subjective in that the results would be skewed if the initial assumption were incorrect. In that the abductees demonstrated the memory issues noted if the cause were external as opposed to them being internal.

She found that only those with recovered memory exhibited this response. This suggest that the act of memory recovery creates the responce. The discovery of and confrontation with conflicting memories could have created the response as well. This is a conclusion that I find subjective. Response due to process of recovery. Response due to confrontation of conflicting memory.

The discovery or the method. Choice of conclusion subjective.

That's pure conjecture. Attribution is not proof of causation, especially without prima facie proof.

If it were made when muddy to that depth then it would be impossible to do without leaving footprints or equipment imprints that would be as evident as the marks themselves. If made when it were hard enough to walk on the surface without leaving footprints then it would require a tractor or similar heavey eqipment that would again leave tire marks.

It is this absence of indication of process that leads the spiritual minded to bow before it. Two people, four people, the more involved then the less likely they could do it without leaving marks. The scale of such a project is daunting, to due so without leaving evidence of process is ....magical. BS Hoaxers are purveying myth regardless of the sophistication of their technology.

Correct! I am, instead, using the missing trees and the remaining
stumps as evidence that beavers exist here and now, which
was previously unknown and presumed untrue, since there was no
evidence of their presence.

The fact that beavers are known by some people to exist is irrelevant
to my argument-by-scenario. The (putative) fact that beavers are not
known to exist here and now is what is relevant.

However, my neighbor Abdulsemed hasn't been in the USA very long,
and has never heard of beavers. For him, the missing trees and
remaining stumps are the evidence that beavers exist at
all, anywhere. He has noticed the trees disappear, and saw the
stumps. He has heard the stories of raccoons with flat tails.
Based on the limited evidence he has, he expects that these
creatures really do exist.

We know that intelligent aliens exist. ("Aliens" being creatures
that are not native to the planet Xzthlpmizoth, and "intelligent"
meaning capable of laughing at puns.) The question is, are there
any intelligent aliens visiting us here and now?
Some think that the reports of weird-looking creatures with only
two eyes, two arms, and two legs abducting mrthupsas from grvvlinun
in the sneethkrn are evidence that such intelligent aliens are
visiting us here and now. I, personally, doubt that the reports are
reliable, but I haven't examined them in detail. Apart from these
questionable reports of strange abductions, we have no good reason
to think that such aliens are visiting us here and now.

The given was that reports of alien abductions are accurate as
described:
re-stated:
and re-stated again:
Those assertions are, to me, patently valid. If people are being
abducted as described, then the evidence which shows that those
people are being abducted as described is sufficient evidence that
the abductors exist. You can't have the abductions as described
unless the abductors exist.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

Maybe. But whether it is circular or not is irrelevant. It is a
valid assertion. If people are being abducted as described, then
the abductors exist. Evidence which shows that people are being
abducted as described is evidence that the abductors exist.

I didn't intend to suggest such a thing. I was simply expressing
the idea, for you to take as a given, that beavers don't exist
around here. There probably actually are beavers at the two zoos
in the region, and there could be wild beavers all over the place,
but since I've never seen one and don't remember ever hearing of
any wild beavers in the area, it seemed pretty safe to assert that
there are no wild beavers in the area without getting any guff
about it, as long as I gave you reason to think the assertion is...
reasonable. It seemed an efficient way to set up a scenario.

We don't need any independant knowledge about the properties of
a thing to deduce the existence of that thing from the thing's
behavior.

New scenario:

Holes have been appearing in lawns. In the same time period,
dogs and cats have disappeared. Children have reported that they
saw dogs and cats being taken away by mole men.

If the children's descriptions of the abductions are accurate,
that would be compelling evidence for the existence of mole men.
Hundreds of reports have been made; the children's stories are all
consistent with all known facts except for the presumed nonexistence
of mole men.

I may not know what "mole men" are, the children may not know what
they are, but if the children have reported them accurately, which it
appears they have, then we have pretty good evidence that "mole men"
exist.

The fact that I have no idea what "mole men" are or anything at all
about them is irrelevant. They are what the children reported seeing
take the dogs and cats.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

If I understand Jay correctly, in the case where its only known property is the phenomenon under discussion (in this case, arbitrary teleportation of everybody on earth), any conjecture about the cause is just as "circular" as any other. What about mass, arbitrary teleportation makes "space aliens" a more likely cause than "demons from hell", or "van Rijn's invisible backyard pixie", or "tiny magical golden monkeys", or "time-travling meta-humans from the Year Twelve Thousand", or "Nargles"?

Because they have the power to arbitrarily teleport everybody on earth? That's circular, be definition.

On the other hand, if intrepid zoologists came out of the Congo last year, and presented tiny magical golden monkeys at the World's Fair, and people from across the globe came and witnessed the ability of these monkeys to arbitrarily teleport bananas, each other, and even the occasional unwary spectator across their enclosure, then attributing the sudden mass teleportation of everybody on earth to tiny magical golden monkeys would not be circular at all. Because we would have other solid evidence that they exist and have the powers attributed to them.

You say "space aliens" is a reasonable conjecture, because it's reasonable to assume that space aliens have the power of mass arbitrary teleportation.

I say that without independent evidence of space aliens, it's just as reasonable (and, unfortunately, just as circular), to assume that space aliens are entirely incapable of mass arbitrary teleportation, and that the real cause are the much more elegant and humorous tiny magical golden monkeys, which have the added advantage of being magical, and therefore obviously capable of mass arbitrary teleportation (along with several other magical effects such as memory manipulation, mind control, invisibility, and global warming).

I guess it comes down to whether or not you would find space aliens a more reasonable explanation than golden monkeys. I think it would depend on the phenomena exhibited.

Your adding global warming to your list was...lame and an insult to intelligent, hard working scientists everywhere who just happen to disagree with your politics.

I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong, here. You can look in any decent encyclopedia, even one for four-year-olds, and find all sorts of details of what beavers look like, act like, and are like. You cannot similarly find information about space aliens.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"