Feng Shui dictates that cluttered space stops the energy flow through a room, which leads to stagnation and ill-health. I've seen practical examples of this.
I have room mates who have problems cleaning up after themselves and keeping common spaces uncluttered. It goes beyond the generic version of this, though. It's really a fascinating situation. I'm not a particularly neat person, but I find myself regularly cleaning all the dishes and putting stuff away after them so that we have a functional kitchen, and each time I've seen them unconsciously/on-purpose mess it up within a very few minutes. They like to exist in a state of chaos either because it fits their head-space, (very creative energetic people).
Okay. If I don't mind cleaning, which I don't, then things tend to work nicely.
However, whenever I decide not to clean for some reason, or if I go away for a week, I'll come back to such a state of chaos that you cannot even move through the house. (Stacks of junk in doorways which you can't even see over, style-chaos). Interestingly, when it gets like this, the mood in the house disintegrates quickly. When just walking around becomes frustrating, and when you can't perform basic day-to-day functions like cooking food because all the pots and pans are dirty and you can't clean them because the sink is over-flowing with dirty plates preventing you from even reaching the faucet, and you can't even get to the sink because there is a sewing machine and box of books and a fully-deployed laundry-drying rack filling the minimal floor space left over. . . Well, a lot of your energy and awareness are used up just trying to perform basic survival functions. When a small problem arises which requires quick actions and quick thought and free energy, it instantly balloons into a full-scale emergency with people shouting and crying and hurting themselves. I've felt at such times like a claustrophobic in a submarine. I am not exaggerating on any of these points.
Now, I've always felt that the home is supposed to be a relaxing place, and the kitchen is the very heart of the home. When there is so much clutter and mess that simple living becomes an exercise in frustration, then it means that there is no place to relax in your own home. This affects not just the mood, but health. As an experiment, I decided to stop cleaning for two weeks. Wow! I watched the state of mental and physical health in my room mates drop like a rock. Everybody was tired and sick and angry. When I'd finally seen enough, I told them that it was time for them to clean up and that I was beginning to get angry with them for being so disrespectful. I didn't have to push hard, but it did take some firm words. In the end I got them to clean it all up. Almost instantly, the mood of the house became positive and health problems vanished. Life started to flow again.
They still have trouble with cleaning. I'm moving out next month, and they have a baby on the way, so it'll be interesting to see how things go. (I don't nag at all, but I have casually told them that their kind of preferred environment simply won't work for a baby, and without me around to keep the chaos in a manageable state, things are going to go bad fast unless they learn some basic living skills fast. To this end, I've stopped cleaning again, (except for my own stuff which I always stay on top of), and have been applying some mental pressure towards their learning how to run a house. They're picking it up slowly, and I wish them the very best of luck with it. We'll have to see how it goes when I'm gone. I've seen bad in other young parents, and it can lead to horrible living environments and terrible health problems, so I really do hope they 'get' it.
Anyway, my point is that the article might be right in some respects, -Ordered chaos is a great state to be in as it offers up tons of ideas and random energy which are wonderful for a creative mind. But chaos which tips the balance too far will screw you up and make you angry and sick.
Or to make a long story short. . , There's Ordered Chaos and there's just plain old Chaos.
I can't make heads or tails out of this story. It looks too good to be true, and the links feel suspicious to me. --And no, I don't put any faith in Discovery Channel stories ever since I watched a piece on breast implant science which had a super-positive bullshit spin on it and was funded by one of the actual manufacturers of silicon implants. The Discovery Channel just plain sucks, but it's hard to recognize this because it's so easy to sell bullshit under the guise of the all-mighty 'documentary'.
So can somebody please do the math and figure out if this Air Car idea is even possible? This is the area where the Slashdot crowd shines; Research, Thinking and Networking.
Okay. So Walmart is a big, giant money funnel from the West to Asia.
Asia ignores copyright and never pays for Western Media, distributing it like crazy to all corners of the East.
Those two things are different.
The West sending all its money to Asia is a way to go broke. But. . .
Getting everybody hooked on Western media is the way you totally decimate a local culture and re-forge it in your own image.
So if the West goes broke and blows away in a giant dust bowl, does it matter if it has re-spawned over in the East and swallowed the other half of the world?
An interesting question, but one which is totally academic since most of Asia is going to exist under three miles of pack ice within the next decade or so.
When I was a kid, I blew thousands of hours playing video games.
A small percentage of that time actually taught me useful skills. Included among them were. . .
Patterns of competitive social behavior among friends. (When you are doing really well in a game, other people will sometimes try to derail you by projecting "Fail" at you in a variety of ways. You learn how to recognize this and how to counter it, and what kinds of behaviors friends can take on. These lessons, however, can be learned in any environment. Kids will make up games with sticks and rocks in order to learn this stuff. Computers just happened to be the dominant medium at the time.)
Resource management and energy investment strategies Playing the ancient 14kb pre-cursor to MOO2, "Conquest" was a very instructive game. I was able to use the basic patterns I learned in such games later on in the business world to good effect. The computer was able to teach such lessons quickly.
The limits of artificial intelligence V.S. the power of human creativity All games are stupid. They cannot adapt and so all scenarios must fall within pre-conceived realities. Not being able to pick up objects in an adventure game and use them as they could be used in the real world beyond what the programmer allowed for, was highly irritating. But I don't think this lesson is worth much. If there were no computers in the first place, it wouldn't even be an issue.
Technology. I built my own AppleII, all in order to play video games. I learned about computer programming in order to make my own games. As a result, I am comfortable in a world run by computers. I can build and fix and tinker, usually with good effect, where others are left confused in the power of technology they cannot understand.
Hacking systems Some of the very best lessons I learned from the old computer games came from cracking them, pirating them, making friend networks where we would trek around the city with blank 5.25" floppies in our back packs. From this, I discovered an all-powerful pattern which could be mapped on to nearly all areas of existence; that the limiting systems which surround us every day, systems both technological and social, can without exception be altered to fit one's vision of how reality ought to run. You do not have to conform! These skills have served me very well in life, and I learned these lessons by following my love of video games.
I differentiate between computer games and the console games. Console games seem to offer far fewer opportunities at learning anything beyond the simple lessons I outlined above, about competition and simple resource management, etc. For the most part, the people I see playing such games often look like brain-dead zombie people sitting on couches twiddling thumbs ad nauseum. I certainly blew lots of hours with Atari-style joysticks in hand, but it was always done in front of a keyboard, though I have little recollection about anything which happened during those particular hours. Console game systems seem to me more like opiates; yet another layer of limitation and control placed upon humanity. Interestingly, I've never found such game systems to be terribly interesting. Computers have always seemed far more engaging to me.
Why not just order the box without a hard drive and then put one in yourself. What would Dell do if you tried to order one of their machines without a hard drive, I wonder? Would they still try to charge for the OS if they can't sell you the one component vital to its existence?
I note on their website that you cannot order a box without a hard drive, which means you'd have to talk to a real-live human in order to get it done. Though, I suspect that whoever I talked to on the phone would have to call their manager over and then collectively scratch their heads on such a request.
--Calling over the manager and lots of head-scratching tend to be common whenever I try to do things in this world. I think this must be the case for anybody who refuses to play sheep at the game of life; there are simply no regular options available for people who are not asleep. Luckily, no matter how much control a corporate body puts into the their systems, I've so far always managed to find ways towards freedom of choice, usually at the expense of somebody's peaceful state of servitude, for which I make no apologies.
pssst..If there was evidence of life'out there' NASA would be hooting and hollering. money would flow to them in giant rivers.
Sure, that would be true if the brochure version of reality and the, um. . , real version of reality happened to line up, which they do not.
NASA isn't just about space exploration. Nooo. It's also about giving people a false impression. If you spend big money and make big, impressive displays of 'cutting edge' science, then people will believe, as I am guessing you believe, that the science NASA puts on display is the best that we as humans have available, when it certainly is not. Think of NASA as the stage production version of reality designed to give people something impressive to look at, all to provide another pillar to help prop up an illusion. And it's not so hard to do; you just hire on a bunch of engineers who genuinely believe in the false limits, (there tons of wool-pulled sci-tech guys out there blithely believing in the state-installed reality), and let them play in a big sandbox with rocket ships and stuff. The guys at the top who know what's really going on only have to lift a finger now and again when too many bright ideas start happening in the same place.
Getting people to sign non-disclosure agreements, (the violation of which incurs something painful and terrifying), takes care of the rest. It's a well-oiled machine.
Are we all bored to DEATH yet? By the time all of this slow build up is considered humdrum even by those who live hard-wired into their TV's, when the PTB are finally forced to announce the age-old reality of alien life, people won't blink out of existence from the shock of it all.
Social engineering can be so terribly dull to watch unfold.
I don't respond very often but I see so so many misconceptions I have to clarify.
Actually, according to your posting history, you NEVER respond. This would, in fact, be your first post.
Effective grass-rooters need to build up a semi-believable personae before they can be taken even half-way seriously.
I've also noted that you type using the very same patterns of grammar and strange over-use of all-caps as seen in a bunch of other posts on this story. If you are going to cut & paste garbage for some PR firm, try not to suck at it.
You are nothing more than a hired marketing goon. You spin for money. Congratulations. You have no soul.
I always thought that EVIL corperations were only interested in money? Well, how many dead people buy GM food?
Better question: "How many people will buy expensive drugs after they get sick? (Monsanto doesn't just make food. It makes drugs. Conflict of interests?)"
Even Better Question: "How many people even care what happens afterwards so long as they make their big sale?"
Even BETTER Question: "Did you seriously think you were making an insightful point?"
Now if you will excuse me, I am going to go finish my lunch. Mmm-mm! A BLT consisting of non-organically grwon genetcially engineered tomatoes and lettuce, non-free range grown pork, and genetically engineered whole grain gread. All washed down with a big glass of whole milk from cows injected with rBST.
Eat up. Please. (I love how you mis-spelled 'bread', btw. Freud would be proud.)
I had mod points, but there was no "-1 Gullible" on the available list. (The gullible always tend to be the loudest in broadcasting their astonishing ignorance, their arguments tend to be wonderfully ridiculous houses of cards which fall down easily upon the slightest application of rationality and investigation.)
So thank-you for keeping American advertising and public relations executives employed. Without people like you, they'd all have to give up and go home.
Normally I might bother arguing your glorious points, but there are just so many, they are all so amazingly dumb and, well, frankly, it's easier to just let you eat the toxic sandwich. There's a sort of comfort in knowing that a shmuck will shortly suffer in his own self-created misery. I've seen it happen more than once, and usually it's simply not worth the effort trying to give knowledge to an arrogant fool. The universe tends to be self-balancing that way.
Bye now. And please don't forget to use a generous helping of Mayonnaise made from GM canola oil and to help yourself to a beverage sweetened with Aspartame. Your plummeting IQ and dimming awareness will ensure further amusing posts on Slashdot until at last you vanish altogether in a sad squelch of stupid.
I agree. My clever addition included these three items:
-One of those plastic steam irons; the kind which blows steam and makes wrinkles fall out of clothes in seconds.
-A nice suit jacket and slacks which you roll up tight at the bottom of the bag.
-A bath kit with a razor and cologne.
It was really great to be able to rough it and sleep under bridges, but also have the option to dine in a five star hotel and rub shoulders with an entirely different set of people. That and the +10 Charisma people are granted upon hitting the road can take you virtually anywhere.
While I am impressed with your gadget of choice and your ingenious use of it, there's another side to that story. . .
Getting lost and having to sleep on streets led to some of the coolest, most unexpected adventures I've ever had. One of the first girl I slept with was the result of not playing it safe in exactly this way. When you're lost and desperate and without safety nets, you suddenly find yourself being braver and accessing wells of strength and resourcefulness you didn't realize existed within you. Technology robs us in many ways.
As they say. . , "All ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
The Universe is a very weird thing and it will never be made fully safe and fully understood through Science, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't keep searching. The experience of being is the name of the game, and experience is boring if you don't keep seeking. So it seems to me a good thing that the universe is a mystery which keeps on giving.
Gee, that isn't a prejudicial anecdote or anything...Say instead that instead of an uncle it was another kid, and Kid 1 claimed to have a video game that wasn't supposed to be out yet. Kid 2 asks to see it. Kid 1 refuses, saying that if Kid 2 looks around hard enough, he'll figure out where Kid 1 bought it, when he hasn't even proved that he has the video game in the first place. [sigh] This is really totally pointless. My point is that when you make a claim and expect me to accept it as even valid, much less true, it is not my responsibility to do the proving for you. This is an argument. I'm not going to argue both sides.
But we're not talking about something comfortable, like video games. We're talking about a very uncomfortable subject which many refuse to explore due to pre-existing bias. My turtle anecdote was 100% prejudicial, as you point out, which was precisely the point I was trying to make.
Anyway. . . In the end, nothing I can provide for you can be anything more than anecdotal. I can point to papers and other research efforts, but those are also things which you must take on faith at some level, no matter how peer reviewed they may happen to be. In the end, the only proof you have of anything at all, ever, is that which you demonstrate to yourself directly.
That's what I was saying.
In any case I feel we've done the best we can for each other in this particular conversation. I must thank you for adopting a civil tone and for being interesting. The sources I've provided offer a wealth of information and links to other sources, all of which taken together can be cross referenced down to a base understanding of reality beyond the orthodox. If you manage to access portions of that reality through direct experience, as many people start to do once their minds begin to focus in that direction, (your focus really does determine your reality; another fundamental mechanic of universe.), you will have at your disposal some fascinating tools which can make it easier to respond intelligently to many of the challenges facing us today. What you do with all of that is up to you.
Just wondering...do you actually know any physics? Because your meaningless pseudo-scientific quasimystical terminology is really quite entertaining. What are these higher dimensions? Can you describe them mathematically? Is there any theory (in the scientific meaning, not the hypothesis-synonymous one) or evidence to support their existence?
First of all, you really need to drop the nastiness in your tone. Ridicule is a means of attempting to control another through the attempted application of shame and guilt. It is hardly the embodiment of the scientific mind you appear to champion. While I believe emotions are important, ridicule is for those who do not know how to approach the unknown without fear. It speaks volumes about the perpetrator.
Secondly, no I am not a scientist. I do, however, have a fairly strong awareness of physics and I always maintain the kind of approach to life which allows me to ask enough of the right questions to understand those who are scientists. But no, I cannot debate in terms of high numbers and formulea. Can you? If I were to present the kind of maths you are requesting, could you make sense of them? In case you can, I can submit this fellow's work. . . I have had the opportunity to converse with him through email on the subject, and I believe him to be, for a variety of reasons, a man of sound mind and high intelligence.
I can also talk at length about my understanding of how the universe works, but I am not certain it would be much use to you as you would need to have a collection of experiential building blocks which I am assuming you do not have. --That of experiencing energy and spirits and similar to the point where you cannot deny the existence of something 'more' than is covered by conventional, public arena science. The problem is that those who live in closed, safe boxes where only the 'acceptable' experiences are allowed to affect you, (and this is quite possible), the full scope of reality goes unnoticed.
Ah. I see. These higher-dimensional beings who don't obey the laws of physics are emotivores that have engineered human development to provide a source of negative vibes to feed on...this is interestingly reminiscent of Scientology. Once again, is this merely wild hypothesizing or is this back up by anything? And can you provide any scientific definition for this "higher reality" and how or why "feeding on pain" is the primary form of sustenance there?
Good lord, I'm no Scientologist! The more you learn about this area of knowledge, the more you realize just how dangerous the Scientology movement is. As per your question, entities channeled from the non-corporeal end of the existence spectrum offer a rich source of information with regard to the whole subject of how reality works beyond our own experience of it. But it is a source closed off to those who refuse to look at or acknowledge such things. Here's a link anyway to one such source, in case you are interested. . . There are several others.
Yes, and once those other factors are known, they are added to the set of relevant observations, the question is reevaluated, and the new least-assumptive theory is formulated. This is merely the reapplication of the same principle given new evidence. What you can't do is assume the other factors exist with no reason to think so, and use this as a reason to believe that the current theory is false and propose an even wilder, more assumptive theory on the basis of evidence that isn't proven or specified.
This is wonderful, but many people misuse Occam's razor to shoot down ideas before they have been properly evaluated. "Based on my limited knowledge, Occam's Razor says X is unlikely, therefore I will not bother considering X." But what if X happens to be real? Then ignoran
And because you seem to think what I said is conjecture I would like to tell you about what is happening in Norway - which just happens to be next to Sweden. In fact the [few] extremists amongst our Muslim immigrant population have begun physically attacking our Jewish minority on the streets. At cultural events in the Jewish community we have to have secret police protection both inside and outside the buildings. Just a few months ago one group attacked the Synagogue in Oslo, shooting at it with automatic weapons, because they "sympathized" with their Muslim brethren. Their next target was bombing the American embassy. They were arrested afterwards. And we have had the pleasure of hosting numerous international terrorists responsible for attacks in Spain etc. Thank God, our Secret Service is very active and has stopped numerous attacks and kept tabs on the extremists.
Yes, it's sad that propaganda works both ways. But it doesn't mean that it's not propaganda or that people should believe in it to the point where they thank god for the Secret Police. --Because that's the prize ticket. That's the goal; getting people to accept severely limited freedoms and crushing government control measures.
I'm very sorry to hear that the seeds of truth for the propaganda are being planted in your neighborhood. (Who starts the violence, I wonder? In America, there have been instances of police sending trouble-makers into crowds of demonstrators to initiate violence so that the police can justify using force to clear an area. It works well and not just in this country.)
Resist it. Do not hate, do not fear and communicate openly. One of my room mates is a Muslim woman. She's married to a practicing Catholic. They're two of the most reasonable and respected people in my town; they condemn violence, bear no ill will toward anybody and openly talk about and deride all the precepts upon which religious violence is based. They have done more to defuse irrational hatred and fear in my community regarding Islam than anybody I've ever seen, and they do it simply by being open and honest; talking to anybody who asks questions.
This kind of effort has a ripple effect, and upon each person where the ripple touches, new ripples propagate outward, touching ever more people.
You can help too, but only by putting fear aside and by talking, listening and making contact with the people you don't understand. The ripples you make will be beautiful and strong and they will touch countless others in ways you cannot even begin to imagine.
If a federal police organization needs to ask permission to perform a wiretap, (using something like the USA PATRIOT act, for instance), then this assumes that wiretapping is a measure which is controlled by the voting public.
Okay. The problem is that systems like Echelon and similar are working full time and we knew nothing about them until somebody slipped up. And I think it is safe to assume, (and I believe it has been stated), that analogous systems exist in all the major Western nations.
Echelon doesn't come with permission slips. It's functioning full-time, and nobody has been issued a warrant. It's just there. And since federal agencies need permission to spy on the public, then who is using it during all the times when permission slips have not been issued? --Because you don't put a system like that in place and then not use it. If it's there, it's being used all the time. Simple as that. But who is doing the listening? I'd guess it's not the same people who are worrying about obtaining search warrants.
Which means there is a layer of people who don't have to worry about legislation. And if such people can afford giant systems like Echelon, what else can they afford to do? (Well, pretty much whatever they want, if the accounts are to be believed.)
And do they care about 'terrorism'? Sure. But only in how the idea of terrorist can be used as a piece of propaganda to perform social engineering. They would almost certainly know about any terrorist plot well in advance, probably because they engineer or at the very least stage-manage any plot. But to what end?
I think that has been answered in other forums.
The point is that such systems of "Always Listening" show the hand of the Secret Government.
Just being Christian and democratic is enough for Islamist terrorists to attack. Besides what do they know about Sweden? Bin Laden has already ordered attacks on Norway for some reason - but Denmark has troops in Iraq. Go figure? Anyway - Sweden has thousands upon thousands of Muslim immigrants from Somalia and Iraq. Two somalis with Swedish passports were just arrested in Somalia fighting for the Islamists (Islamic Courts). Who are they going to attack next? Lots of infidels in Sweden they can attack at will.
Whoa. Somebody has been taking their prescribed dosage of network news!
Unless your proposition is that these aliens come not only from outside Earth, but from another universe, and somehow carry the differing laws of their universe with them, there are in fact certain requirements that all occupants of our vacuum are subject to.
Bingo. Except you don't have to leave this universe to live in a reality where the physical laws of higher dimensions apply.
Then tell me it! I'd love to hear it. I'm not fundamentally opposed to the idea of UFOs-as-aliens; I just don't see it as likely or supported by evidence and known natural law. If you have an answer to the inverse of Fermi's Paradox (not "why haven't they?" but "why should they?") enlighten me.
They're here to eat us. Pain and strong negative emotion is food. This is why psychopaths cause harm and chaos. It's why cats play with mice before they kill them. It's why the popular kids torment the unpopular kids. At higher levels of reality, this type of energetic transfer is the main system of feeding. We are a food source and our history has been engineered to create misery and fear. This explanation should satisfy both Fermi's Paradox and the alternative flavor of it which you provide. That is, "They have," and "They're hungry."
Now, you may be under the misapprehension that the principle is merely that 'the simplest explanation is usually the best'. Wrong. Most clearly put, it is that "when there are multiple logically coherent and uncontradicted explanations for a set of observations, the one that requires the fewest assumptions is the best."
And the addendum should read: "But said explanation is STILL not automatically the right one given the fact that researchers might be unaware of important factors." --Which means that Occam's razor is merely a semi-useful rule of thumb which is entirely subjective. The problem is that some people have such huge egos that they don't deal well with having their lack of knowledge in some areas pointed out. The philosophy of science isn't so high and mighty or unassailable. If scientists would enjoy their work more and not take themselves so seriously, they wouldn't walk around with such alarming blind spots. I've met some who do and some who don't. As with all matters, there's an art to getting it right.
Ah, well that clears it up. I'm sure you can back that up by proving it, or at the very least pointing me towards some peer-reviewed scientific articles that attempt to prove it. And as far as the government-military conspiracy goes, wow do I love conspiracy theorists. It's so much fun: the government is part of a vast conspiracy, but there's no evidence because, of course, the government conspiracy controls or destroyed it all. So the lack of evidence is proof of the assertion!
That's more closed thinking which will prevent you from finding any truth. I wanted to know more and so I went out and found people who had direct contact with a variety of taboo subjects. I've known highly placed political family and highly placed military people. I've seen and experienced truth. Government conspiracy is quite real. And it's not even that well concealed. People simply tend to look the other way when inconsistencies pop up. In the end, though, I can't and won't prove any of the big items here because it's not appropriate or safe or considerate, but I do remain confident in the knowledge I have earned. You can find out the truth for yourself if you get out there and look for yourself. That's the only way you can do it. My word means little and I don't expect you to change your belief systems based on anecdotes, and that's entirely fair. I can't and won't do anything other than trade logical precepts and point you towards interesting ideas and data. Actual proof is your problem, because in the end, if you walk away entirely ignorant it doesn't really matter to me. But it does matter to you.
You made a positive assertion. Disproving it is not my responsibility, and telling me to go look up evidence t
While it's an absolutely valid claim that I cannot generalize my motivations to an alien psychology, in the solution space of the possible outcomes of life's evolution and development to a technologically advanced level, basic common strictures like the scarcity of material resources, the difficult of interstellar travel, the evolutionary superiority (or even necessity) of observer-oriented goal systems, and the trend towards maximization of informational 'thought-space' for minimal mass-energy budget is going to have generalized effects for the average civilization.
No. You are doing it again. --You are assuming that alien beings have human limitations, human technology and exist in the same physical reality that we do. You are essentially assuming that you are dealing with humans, or at the most, Star Trek aliens, (humans in costumes). This is a very narrow view of the possibilities available, and indeed, the probable reality. UFO's are almost certainly not nuts and bolts technology, at least not in the sense a human engineer might grasp.
The second major logical fallacy here is that in support of a claim (that UFOs have visited Earth) I should assume that unknown other information exists that these hypothetical aliens know and which would cause them to seek to come to Earth, and that this is a reason to believe in these visitations in the first place! This is both circular and baselessly assumptive.
Leave for a moment the question of arguing over what you should believe, (it makes little difference to anybody but you), and look over the logic again. There's no fallacy there. --All I'm saying is that if the alien presence is real then the aliens automatically know more than you do about their motivations in coming here. This is by no means an unreasonable assumption. Just because you can't imagine a reason does not mean there is no reason. In fact, there ARE reasons of which people are aware. You simply do not know what they are because you've limited yourself to your current logical bubble.
No, assuming unspecified evidence that I don't have a) exists, and b) proves your claim, is NOT more logical. Look at it like a scientific claim, or a legal case: The vast majority of UFO reports are based solely on unverified eyewitness accounts, frequently by highly unreliable individuals. Those that aren't, or that are based on larger numbers of witnesses, have equally coherent explanations that require fewer assumptive leaps - natural phenomena and military testing, primarily. Ockham's Razor. Moreover, most of the particularly major or famous examples have been shown to be hoaxes. And this doesn't even begin to cover the issue of totally baseless derivative conspiracy theories... Simply put, using a string of unspecified assumptions to conclude from limited evidence of low reliability that lifeforms of unknown origin and evolution used ridiculously advanced technology to travel to a world self-evidently beneath them for unknown reasons or motivations is ludicrous.
You're telling me that you think your opinion trumps sixty years worth of observation and research? I see. The problem is that many, if not all of your factual claims in the above paragraph are false.
I refer you to Richard Dolan's book which contains, among many things, a series of documented witness accounts. However, when sifting through the available accounts he could include, (using the FIOA), Dolan, thinking much as you do, that he should discount any witness testimony from anybody in the civilian sector. It only deals with sightings made by military officers, pilots/air traffic controlers and police officers, all of whom are generally hired with a thought to their mental stability and reliability as people. They were also the ones who kept documents of their encounters. Secondly, Dolan discarded single-person encounters. All the accounts in his book involve multiple-witness events. --And even
Wow man, it's a good thing you aren't one of those "crazies" that you talk about or you would have posted some bizarre rant about one world government and interdimensional beings instead of this well-thought-out rational discourse.
Oh. That behavior. How disappointing.
What were you? The kid in the classroom who was smarter than the other kids because he had a natural bit of IQ which was a shave or two above the rest of the pack, --but who refused to participate along with the other kids and so instead whenever somebody built up the courage to speak, you'd make some disparaging remark to shut him/her down and make the rest of the class laugh? --And all in order to hide your own screaming lack of self-confidence.
Or is there some other reason you're behaving with such text-book nastiness? There's the age-old natural desire to punish those who dare think anything but group-approved thoughts. (Because the group is never wrong or ignorant.) Is it that simple?
In any case, ridicule is the hallmark of the ignorant and fearful when they lack an actual argument to deal with something which upsets them. Often they don't even know why something upsets them. They don't bother to question why their knees are jerking.
It would be a good idea to work on that part of yourself.
I think the distinction is that while intelligent, civilization-forming extraterrestrial life may be not only real but abundant on cosmic scales, the likelihood that any intelligent lifeform smart enough to develop an economical method of traveling interstellar distances within a reasonable timeframe would have any desire to come to Earth is exceedingly low. And even if they did, it further stands to reason that they would either interfere with us outright, or be completely undetectable, that any experiments they performed would not be half-assed jobs that left people running around with partial memories chatting about it, and they would certainly not be allied with, much less occasionally overpowered by, the US government/military.
Unfortunately, none of the logical conclusions you present here have any validity whatsoever given that the starting information is far too fuzzy to offer anything solid enough to start from.
For example. . .
the likelihood that any intelligent lifeform smart enough to develop an economical method of traveling interstellar distances within a reasonable timeframe would have any desire to come to Earth is exceedingly low.
What are you basing this assumption on? Isn't it more likely that if said lifeform exists, and if they are here, then perhaps there is something that they know which you do not? You cannot use your human perspective to assume what an alien life form would think of as reasonable or desirable. In fact, there are many indicators that time and space do not exist in the same way for the UFO aliens as it does for us. A simple factor as that throws off all such assumptions as yours.
And even if they did, it further stands to reason that they would either interfere with us outright, or be completely undetectable, that any experiments they performed would not be half-assed jobs that left people running around with partial memories chatting about it, and they would certainly not be allied with, much less occasionally overpowered by, the US government/military.
No, it does not stand to reason. If it is happening as people report, and there are many excellent reasons to believe that it is, then is it not more logical to think that there is something you are overlooking than it is to think that the entirety of the last sixty years of observation and research is mistaken? If you dig enough, you will indeed, find many reasonable answers which will fit into your questions like puzzle pieces.
You need to research this subject a lot more, because your questions are entirely valid. But that does not mean they do not have answers. They do. --And it's fun to learn what they are! The universe is a far more amazing place than many people realize.
The problem with conspiracy theorists is they insist on sticking to their theory even when several aspects of it are empirically shown to be false. The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a great example of this.
Some of them are. There are a lot of ideas surrounding the event and some of them aren't very smart or insightful. Some of them, however, are extremely smart and insightful. You would be very hard pressed to explain the government's actions and lack of proper investigation on that day, or to apply the official explanation offered up in a way which explains the dozens of anomalous facts.
For example: you say the hijackers were uneducated, but that's demonstrably false. Mohammed Atta, for example, had a Master's degree.
I don't recall anybody ever claiming that they doubted the official explanation for 9-11 based on the formal university education of the supposed hijackers. I know that the fact that two of the hijackers failed out of the flight school they attended is mentioned in serious debates. Is this what you are maybe referring to?
Also, the Boeing 747 is quite a bit larger than the Boeing 757.
Again, I don't know what you are talking about. What is your point? How does this invalidate any of the rational arguments which posit that 9-11 was an inside job?
As for the Pentagon hit, there was tons of debris, and they DID hit plenty of other things on the way in, including several fences, cars, and a generator.
Ah. The Above Top Secret write-up. Granted, the editor worked hard to create his site and he tries to think clearly, but there are many flaws with his various arguments.
Slashdot Mirror
I have room mates who have problems cleaning up after themselves and keeping common spaces uncluttered. It goes beyond the generic version of this, though. It's really a fascinating situation. I'm not a particularly neat person, but I find myself regularly cleaning all the dishes and putting stuff away after them so that we have a functional kitchen, and each time I've seen them unconsciously/on-purpose mess it up within a very few minutes. They like to exist in a state of chaos either because it fits their head-space, (very creative energetic people).
Okay. If I don't mind cleaning, which I don't, then things tend to work nicely.
However, whenever I decide not to clean for some reason, or if I go away for a week, I'll come back to such a state of chaos that you cannot even move through the house. (Stacks of junk in doorways which you can't even see over, style-chaos). Interestingly, when it gets like this, the mood in the house disintegrates quickly. When just walking around becomes frustrating, and when you can't perform basic day-to-day functions like cooking food because all the pots and pans are dirty and you can't clean them because the sink is over-flowing with dirty plates preventing you from even reaching the faucet, and you can't even get to the sink because there is a sewing machine and box of books and a fully-deployed laundry-drying rack filling the minimal floor space left over. . . Well, a lot of your energy and awareness are used up just trying to perform basic survival functions. When a small problem arises which requires quick actions and quick thought and free energy, it instantly balloons into a full-scale emergency with people shouting and crying and hurting themselves. I've felt at such times like a claustrophobic in a submarine. I am not exaggerating on any of these points.
Now, I've always felt that the home is supposed to be a relaxing place, and the kitchen is the very heart of the home. When there is so much clutter and mess that simple living becomes an exercise in frustration, then it means that there is no place to relax in your own home. This affects not just the mood, but health. As an experiment, I decided to stop cleaning for two weeks. Wow! I watched the state of mental and physical health in my room mates drop like a rock. Everybody was tired and sick and angry. When I'd finally seen enough, I told them that it was time for them to clean up and that I was beginning to get angry with them for being so disrespectful. I didn't have to push hard, but it did take some firm words. In the end I got them to clean it all up. Almost instantly, the mood of the house became positive and health problems vanished. Life started to flow again.
They still have trouble with cleaning. I'm moving out next month, and they have a baby on the way, so it'll be interesting to see how things go. (I don't nag at all, but I have casually told them that their kind of preferred environment simply won't work for a baby, and without me around to keep the chaos in a manageable state, things are going to go bad fast unless they learn some basic living skills fast. To this end, I've stopped cleaning again, (except for my own stuff which I always stay on top of), and have been applying some mental pressure towards their learning how to run a house. They're picking it up slowly, and I wish them the very best of luck with it. We'll have to see how it goes when I'm gone. I've seen bad in other young parents, and it can lead to horrible living environments and terrible health problems, so I really do hope they 'get' it.
Anyway, my point is that the article might be right in some respects, -Ordered chaos is a great state to be in as it offers up tons of ideas and random energy which are wonderful for a creative mind. But chaos which tips the balance too far will screw you up and make you angry and sick.
Or to make a long story short. . , There's Ordered Chaos and there's just plain old Chaos.
You have to pick.
-FL
I can't make heads or tails out of this story. It looks too good to be true, and the links feel suspicious to me. --And no, I don't put any faith in Discovery Channel stories ever since I watched a piece on breast implant science which had a super-positive bullshit spin on it and was funded by one of the actual manufacturers of silicon implants. The Discovery Channel just plain sucks, but it's hard to recognize this because it's so easy to sell bullshit under the guise of the all-mighty 'documentary'.
So can somebody please do the math and figure out if this Air Car idea is even possible? This is the area where the Slashdot crowd shines; Research, Thinking and Networking.
Thank-You!
-FL
--And the proto-type Moller even looks cool.
-FL
Asia ignores copyright and never pays for Western Media, distributing it like crazy to all corners of the East.
Those two things are different.
The West sending all its money to Asia is a way to go broke. But. . .
Getting everybody hooked on Western media is the way you totally decimate a local culture and re-forge it in your own image.
So if the West goes broke and blows away in a giant dust bowl, does it matter if it has re-spawned over in the East and swallowed the other half of the world?
An interesting question, but one which is totally academic since most of Asia is going to exist under three miles of pack ice within the next decade or so.
-FL
A small percentage of that time actually taught me useful skills. Included among them were. . .
Patterns of competitive social behavior among friends. (When you are doing really well in a game, other people will sometimes try to derail you by projecting "Fail" at you in a variety of ways. You learn how to recognize this and how to counter it, and what kinds of behaviors friends can take on. These lessons, however, can be learned in any environment. Kids will make up games with sticks and rocks in order to learn this stuff. Computers just happened to be the dominant medium at the time.)
Resource management and energy investment strategies Playing the ancient 14kb pre-cursor to MOO2, "Conquest" was a very instructive game. I was able to use the basic patterns I learned in such games later on in the business world to good effect. The computer was able to teach such lessons quickly.
The limits of artificial intelligence V.S. the power of human creativity All games are stupid. They cannot adapt and so all scenarios must fall within pre-conceived realities. Not being able to pick up objects in an adventure game and use them as they could be used in the real world beyond what the programmer allowed for, was highly irritating. But I don't think this lesson is worth much. If there were no computers in the first place, it wouldn't even be an issue.
Technology. I built my own AppleII, all in order to play video games. I learned about computer programming in order to make my own games. As a result, I am comfortable in a world run by computers. I can build and fix and tinker, usually with good effect, where others are left confused in the power of technology they cannot understand.
Hacking systems Some of the very best lessons I learned from the old computer games came from cracking them, pirating them, making friend networks where we would trek around the city with blank 5.25" floppies in our back packs. From this, I discovered an all-powerful pattern which could be mapped on to nearly all areas of existence; that the limiting systems which surround us every day, systems both technological and social, can without exception be altered to fit one's vision of how reality ought to run. You do not have to conform! These skills have served me very well in life, and I learned these lessons by following my love of video games.
I differentiate between computer games and the console games. Console games seem to offer far fewer opportunities at learning anything beyond the simple lessons I outlined above, about competition and simple resource management, etc. For the most part, the people I see playing such games often look like brain-dead zombie people sitting on couches twiddling thumbs ad nauseum. I certainly blew lots of hours with Atari-style joysticks in hand, but it was always done in front of a keyboard, though I have little recollection about anything which happened during those particular hours. Console game systems seem to me more like opiates; yet another layer of limitation and control placed upon humanity. Interestingly, I've never found such game systems to be terribly interesting. Computers have always seemed far more engaging to me.
-FL
I note on their website that you cannot order a box without a hard drive, which means you'd have to talk to a real-live human in order to get it done. Though, I suspect that whoever I talked to on the phone would have to call their manager over and then collectively scratch their heads on such a request.
--Calling over the manager and lots of head-scratching tend to be common whenever I try to do things in this world. I think this must be the case for anybody who refuses to play sheep at the game of life; there are simply no regular options available for people who are not asleep. Luckily, no matter how much control a corporate body puts into the their systems, I've so far always managed to find ways towards freedom of choice, usually at the expense of somebody's peaceful state of servitude, for which I make no apologies.
-FL
-FL
Sure, that would be true if the brochure version of reality and the, um. . , real version of reality happened to line up, which they do not.
NASA isn't just about space exploration. Nooo. It's also about giving people a false impression. If you spend big money and make big, impressive displays of 'cutting edge' science, then people will believe, as I am guessing you believe, that the science NASA puts on display is the best that we as humans have available, when it certainly is not. Think of NASA as the stage production version of reality designed to give people something impressive to look at, all to provide another pillar to help prop up an illusion. And it's not so hard to do; you just hire on a bunch of engineers who genuinely believe in the false limits, (there tons of wool-pulled sci-tech guys out there blithely believing in the state-installed reality), and let them play in a big sandbox with rocket ships and stuff. The guys at the top who know what's really going on only have to lift a finger now and again when too many bright ideas start happening in the same place.
Getting people to sign non-disclosure agreements, (the violation of which incurs something painful and terrifying), takes care of the rest. It's a well-oiled machine.
But the glossy pictures are just so nice!
-FL
Are we all bored to DEATH yet? By the time all of this slow build up is considered humdrum even by those who live hard-wired into their TV's, when the PTB are finally forced to announce the age-old reality of alien life, people won't blink out of existence from the shock of it all.
Social engineering can be so terribly dull to watch unfold.
-FL
Actually, according to your posting history, you NEVER respond. This would, in fact, be your first post.
Effective grass-rooters need to build up a semi-believable personae before they can be taken even half-way seriously.
I've also noted that you type using the very same patterns of grammar and strange over-use of all-caps as seen in a bunch of other posts on this story. If you are going to cut & paste garbage for some PR firm, try not to suck at it.
You are nothing more than a hired marketing goon. You spin for money. Congratulations. You have no soul.
-FL
Better question: "How many people will buy expensive drugs after they get sick? (Monsanto doesn't just make food. It makes drugs. Conflict of interests?)"
Even Better Question: "How many people even care what happens afterwards so long as they make their big sale?"
Even BETTER Question: "Did you seriously think you were making an insightful point?"
-FL
Eat up. Please. (I love how you mis-spelled 'bread', btw. Freud would be proud.)
I had mod points, but there was no "-1 Gullible" on the available list. (The gullible always tend to be the loudest in broadcasting their astonishing ignorance, their arguments tend to be wonderfully ridiculous houses of cards which fall down easily upon the slightest application of rationality and investigation.)
So thank-you for keeping American advertising and public relations executives employed. Without people like you, they'd all have to give up and go home.
Normally I might bother arguing your glorious points, but there are just so many, they are all so amazingly dumb and, well, frankly, it's easier to just let you eat the toxic sandwich. There's a sort of comfort in knowing that a shmuck will shortly suffer in his own self-created misery. I've seen it happen more than once, and usually it's simply not worth the effort trying to give knowledge to an arrogant fool. The universe tends to be self-balancing that way.
Bye now. And please don't forget to use a generous helping of Mayonnaise made from GM canola oil and to help yourself to a beverage sweetened with Aspartame. Your plummeting IQ and dimming awareness will ensure further amusing posts on Slashdot until at last you vanish altogether in a sad squelch of stupid.
-FL
-One of those plastic steam irons; the kind which blows steam and makes wrinkles fall out of clothes in seconds.
-A nice suit jacket and slacks which you roll up tight at the bottom of the bag.
-A bath kit with a razor and cologne.
It was really great to be able to rough it and sleep under bridges, but also have the option to dine in a five star hotel and rub shoulders with an entirely different set of people. That and the +10 Charisma people are granted upon hitting the road can take you virtually anywhere.
-FL
Getting lost and having to sleep on streets led to some of the coolest, most unexpected adventures I've ever had. One of the first girl I slept with was the result of not playing it safe in exactly this way. When you're lost and desperate and without safety nets, you suddenly find yourself being braver and accessing wells of strength and resourcefulness you didn't realize existed within you. Technology robs us in many ways.
As they say. . , "All ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
-FL
-FL
But we're not talking about something comfortable, like video games. We're talking about a very uncomfortable subject which many refuse to explore due to pre-existing bias. My turtle anecdote was 100% prejudicial, as you point out, which was precisely the point I was trying to make.
Anyway. . . In the end, nothing I can provide for you can be anything more than anecdotal. I can point to papers and other research efforts, but those are also things which you must take on faith at some level, no matter how peer reviewed they may happen to be. In the end, the only proof you have of anything at all, ever, is that which you demonstrate to yourself directly.
That's what I was saying.
In any case I feel we've done the best we can for each other in this particular conversation. I must thank you for adopting a civil tone and for being interesting. The sources I've provided offer a wealth of information and links to other sources, all of which taken together can be cross referenced down to a base understanding of reality beyond the orthodox. If you manage to access portions of that reality through direct experience, as many people start to do once their minds begin to focus in that direction, (your focus really does determine your reality; another fundamental mechanic of universe.), you will have at your disposal some fascinating tools which can make it easier to respond intelligently to many of the challenges facing us today. What you do with all of that is up to you.
Thank-you!
-FL
Just wondering...do you actually know any physics? Because your meaningless pseudo-scientific quasimystical terminology is really quite entertaining. What are these higher dimensions? Can you describe them mathematically? Is there any theory (in the scientific meaning, not the hypothesis-synonymous one) or evidence to support their existence?
First of all, you really need to drop the nastiness in your tone. Ridicule is a means of attempting to control another through the attempted application of shame and guilt. It is hardly the embodiment of the scientific mind you appear to champion. While I believe emotions are important, ridicule is for those who do not know how to approach the unknown without fear. It speaks volumes about the perpetrator.
Secondly, no I am not a scientist. I do, however, have a fairly strong awareness of physics and I always maintain the kind of approach to life which allows me to ask enough of the right questions to understand those who are scientists. But no, I cannot debate in terms of high numbers and formulea. Can you? If I were to present the kind of maths you are requesting, could you make sense of them? In case you can, I can submit this fellow's work. . . I have had the opportunity to converse with him through email on the subject, and I believe him to be, for a variety of reasons, a man of sound mind and high intelligence.
I can also talk at length about my understanding of how the universe works, but I am not certain it would be much use to you as you would need to have a collection of experiential building blocks which I am assuming you do not have. --That of experiencing energy and spirits and similar to the point where you cannot deny the existence of something 'more' than is covered by conventional, public arena science. The problem is that those who live in closed, safe boxes where only the 'acceptable' experiences are allowed to affect you, (and this is quite possible), the full scope of reality goes unnoticed.
Ah. I see. These higher-dimensional beings who don't obey the laws of physics are emotivores that have engineered human development to provide a source of negative vibes to feed on...this is interestingly reminiscent of Scientology. Once again, is this merely wild hypothesizing or is this back up by anything? And can you provide any scientific definition for this "higher reality" and how or why "feeding on pain" is the primary form of sustenance there?
Good lord, I'm no Scientologist! The more you learn about this area of knowledge, the more you realize just how dangerous the Scientology movement is. As per your question, entities channeled from the non-corporeal end of the existence spectrum offer a rich source of information with regard to the whole subject of how reality works beyond our own experience of it. But it is a source closed off to those who refuse to look at or acknowledge such things. Here's a link anyway to one such source, in case you are interested. . . There are several others.
Yes, and once those other factors are known, they are added to the set of relevant observations, the question is reevaluated, and the new least-assumptive theory is formulated. This is merely the reapplication of the same principle given new evidence. What you can't do is assume the other factors exist with no reason to think so, and use this as a reason to believe that the current theory is false and propose an even wilder, more assumptive theory on the basis of evidence that isn't proven or specified.
This is wonderful, but many people misuse Occam's razor to shoot down ideas before they have been properly evaluated. "Based on my limited knowledge, Occam's Razor says X is unlikely, therefore I will not bother considering X." But what if X happens to be real? Then ignoran
Yes, it's sad that propaganda works both ways. But it doesn't mean that it's not propaganda or that people should believe in it to the point where they thank god for the Secret Police. --Because that's the prize ticket. That's the goal; getting people to accept severely limited freedoms and crushing government control measures.
I'm very sorry to hear that the seeds of truth for the propaganda are being planted in your neighborhood. (Who starts the violence, I wonder? In America, there have been instances of police sending trouble-makers into crowds of demonstrators to initiate violence so that the police can justify using force to clear an area. It works well and not just in this country.)
Resist it. Do not hate, do not fear and communicate openly. One of my room mates is a Muslim woman. She's married to a practicing Catholic. They're two of the most reasonable and respected people in my town; they condemn violence, bear no ill will toward anybody and openly talk about and deride all the precepts upon which religious violence is based. They have done more to defuse irrational hatred and fear in my community regarding Islam than anybody I've ever seen, and they do it simply by being open and honest; talking to anybody who asks questions.
This kind of effort has a ripple effect, and upon each person where the ripple touches, new ripples propagate outward, touching ever more people.
You can help too, but only by putting fear aside and by talking, listening and making contact with the people you don't understand. The ripples you make will be beautiful and strong and they will touch countless others in ways you cannot even begin to imagine.
-FL
Okay. The problem is that systems like Echelon and similar are working full time and we knew nothing about them until somebody slipped up. And I think it is safe to assume, (and I believe it has been stated), that analogous systems exist in all the major Western nations.
Echelon doesn't come with permission slips. It's functioning full-time, and nobody has been issued a warrant. It's just there. And since federal agencies need permission to spy on the public, then who is using it during all the times when permission slips have not been issued? --Because you don't put a system like that in place and then not use it. If it's there, it's being used all the time. Simple as that. But who is doing the listening? I'd guess it's not the same people who are worrying about obtaining search warrants.
Which means there is a layer of people who don't have to worry about legislation. And if such people can afford giant systems like Echelon, what else can they afford to do? (Well, pretty much whatever they want, if the accounts are to be believed.)
And do they care about 'terrorism'? Sure. But only in how the idea of terrorist can be used as a piece of propaganda to perform social engineering. They would almost certainly know about any terrorist plot well in advance, probably because they engineer or at the very least stage-manage any plot. But to what end?
I think that has been answered in other forums.
The point is that such systems of "Always Listening" show the hand of the Secret Government.
-FL
Whoa. Somebody has been taking their prescribed dosage of network news!
Propaganda is BAD for you.
-FL
Unless your proposition is that these aliens come not only from outside Earth, but from another universe, and somehow carry the differing laws of their universe with them, there are in fact certain requirements that all occupants of our vacuum are subject to.
Bingo. Except you don't have to leave this universe to live in a reality where the physical laws of higher dimensions apply.
Then tell me it! I'd love to hear it. I'm not fundamentally opposed to the idea of UFOs-as-aliens; I just don't see it as likely or supported by evidence and known natural law. If you have an answer to the inverse of Fermi's Paradox (not "why haven't they?" but "why should they?") enlighten me.
They're here to eat us. Pain and strong negative emotion is food. This is why psychopaths cause harm and chaos. It's why cats play with mice before they kill them. It's why the popular kids torment the unpopular kids. At higher levels of reality, this type of energetic transfer is the main system of feeding. We are a food source and our history has been engineered to create misery and fear. This explanation should satisfy both Fermi's Paradox and the alternative flavor of it which you provide. That is, "They have," and "They're hungry."
Now, you may be under the misapprehension that the principle is merely that 'the simplest explanation is usually the best'. Wrong. Most clearly put, it is that "when there are multiple logically coherent and uncontradicted explanations for a set of observations, the one that requires the fewest assumptions is the best."
And the addendum should read: "But said explanation is STILL not automatically the right one given the fact that researchers might be unaware of important factors." --Which means that Occam's razor is merely a semi-useful rule of thumb which is entirely subjective. The problem is that some people have such huge egos that they don't deal well with having their lack of knowledge in some areas pointed out. The philosophy of science isn't so high and mighty or unassailable. If scientists would enjoy their work more and not take themselves so seriously, they wouldn't walk around with such alarming blind spots. I've met some who do and some who don't. As with all matters, there's an art to getting it right.
Ah, well that clears it up. I'm sure you can back that up by proving it, or at the very least pointing me towards some peer-reviewed scientific articles that attempt to prove it. And as far as the government-military conspiracy goes, wow do I love conspiracy theorists. It's so much fun: the government is part of a vast conspiracy, but there's no evidence because, of course, the government conspiracy controls or destroyed it all. So the lack of evidence is proof of the assertion!
That's more closed thinking which will prevent you from finding any truth. I wanted to know more and so I went out and found people who had direct contact with a variety of taboo subjects. I've known highly placed political family and highly placed military people. I've seen and experienced truth. Government conspiracy is quite real. And it's not even that well concealed. People simply tend to look the other way when inconsistencies pop up. In the end, though, I can't and won't prove any of the big items here because it's not appropriate or safe or considerate, but I do remain confident in the knowledge I have earned. You can find out the truth for yourself if you get out there and look for yourself. That's the only way you can do it. My word means little and I don't expect you to change your belief systems based on anecdotes, and that's entirely fair. I can't and won't do anything other than trade logical precepts and point you towards interesting ideas and data. Actual proof is your problem, because in the end, if you walk away entirely ignorant it doesn't really matter to me. But it does matter to you.
You made a positive assertion. Disproving it is not my responsibility, and telling me to go look up evidence t
While it's an absolutely valid claim that I cannot generalize my motivations to an alien psychology, in the solution space of the possible outcomes of life's evolution and development to a technologically advanced level, basic common strictures like the scarcity of material resources, the difficult of interstellar travel, the evolutionary superiority (or even necessity) of observer-oriented goal systems, and the trend towards maximization of informational 'thought-space' for minimal mass-energy budget is going to have generalized effects for the average civilization.
No. You are doing it again. --You are assuming that alien beings have human limitations, human technology and exist in the same physical reality that we do. You are essentially assuming that you are dealing with humans, or at the most, Star Trek aliens, (humans in costumes). This is a very narrow view of the possibilities available, and indeed, the probable reality. UFO's are almost certainly not nuts and bolts technology, at least not in the sense a human engineer might grasp.
The second major logical fallacy here is that in support of a claim (that UFOs have visited Earth) I should assume that unknown other information exists that these hypothetical aliens know and which would cause them to seek to come to Earth, and that this is a reason to believe in these visitations in the first place! This is both circular and baselessly assumptive.
Leave for a moment the question of arguing over what you should believe, (it makes little difference to anybody but you), and look over the logic again. There's no fallacy there. --All I'm saying is that if the alien presence is real then the aliens automatically know more than you do about their motivations in coming here. This is by no means an unreasonable assumption. Just because you can't imagine a reason does not mean there is no reason. In fact, there ARE reasons of which people are aware. You simply do not know what they are because you've limited yourself to your current logical bubble.
No, assuming unspecified evidence that I don't have a) exists, and b) proves your claim, is NOT more logical. Look at it like a scientific claim, or a legal case: The vast majority of UFO reports are based solely on unverified eyewitness accounts, frequently by highly unreliable individuals. Those that aren't, or that are based on larger numbers of witnesses, have equally coherent explanations that require fewer assumptive leaps - natural phenomena and military testing, primarily. Ockham's Razor. Moreover, most of the particularly major or famous examples have been shown to be hoaxes. And this doesn't even begin to cover the issue of totally baseless derivative conspiracy theories... Simply put, using a string of unspecified assumptions to conclude from limited evidence of low reliability that lifeforms of unknown origin and evolution used ridiculously advanced technology to travel to a world self-evidently beneath them for unknown reasons or motivations is ludicrous.
You're telling me that you think your opinion trumps sixty years worth of observation and research? I see. The problem is that many, if not all of your factual claims in the above paragraph are false.
I refer you to Richard Dolan's book which contains, among many things, a series of documented witness accounts. However, when sifting through the available accounts he could include, (using the FIOA), Dolan, thinking much as you do, that he should discount any witness testimony from anybody in the civilian sector. It only deals with sightings made by military officers, pilots/air traffic controlers and police officers, all of whom are generally hired with a thought to their mental stability and reliability as people. They were also the ones who kept documents of their encounters. Secondly, Dolan discarded single-person encounters. All the accounts in his book involve multiple-witness events. --And even
Oh. That behavior. How disappointing.
What were you? The kid in the classroom who was smarter than the other kids because he had a natural bit of IQ which was a shave or two above the rest of the pack, --but who refused to participate along with the other kids and so instead whenever somebody built up the courage to speak, you'd make some disparaging remark to shut him/her down and make the rest of the class laugh? --And all in order to hide your own screaming lack of self-confidence.
Or is there some other reason you're behaving with such text-book nastiness? There's the age-old natural desire to punish those who dare think anything but group-approved thoughts. (Because the group is never wrong or ignorant.) Is it that simple?
In any case, ridicule is the hallmark of the ignorant and fearful when they lack an actual argument to deal with something which upsets them. Often they don't even know why something upsets them. They don't bother to question why their knees are jerking.
It would be a good idea to work on that part of yourself.
-FL
Unfortunately, none of the logical conclusions you present here have any validity whatsoever given that the starting information is far too fuzzy to offer anything solid enough to start from.
For example. . .
the likelihood that any intelligent lifeform smart enough to develop an economical method of traveling interstellar distances within a reasonable timeframe would have any desire to come to Earth is exceedingly low.
What are you basing this assumption on? Isn't it more likely that if said lifeform exists, and if they are here, then perhaps there is something that they know which you do not? You cannot use your human perspective to assume what an alien life form would think of as reasonable or desirable. In fact, there are many indicators that time and space do not exist in the same way for the UFO aliens as it does for us. A simple factor as that throws off all such assumptions as yours.
And even if they did, it further stands to reason that they would either interfere with us outright, or be completely undetectable, that any experiments they performed would not be half-assed jobs that left people running around with partial memories chatting about it, and they would certainly not be allied with, much less occasionally overpowered by, the US government/military.
No, it does not stand to reason. If it is happening as people report, and there are many excellent reasons to believe that it is, then is it not more logical to think that there is something you are overlooking than it is to think that the entirety of the last sixty years of observation and research is mistaken? If you dig enough, you will indeed, find many reasonable answers which will fit into your questions like puzzle pieces.
You need to research this subject a lot more, because your questions are entirely valid. But that does not mean they do not have answers. They do. --And it's fun to learn what they are! The universe is a far more amazing place than many people realize.
-FL
Some of them are. There are a lot of ideas surrounding the event and some of them aren't very smart or insightful. Some of them, however, are extremely smart and insightful. You would be very hard pressed to explain the government's actions and lack of proper investigation on that day, or to apply the official explanation offered up in a way which explains the dozens of anomalous facts.
For example: you say the hijackers were uneducated, but that's demonstrably false. Mohammed Atta, for example, had a Master's degree.
I don't recall anybody ever claiming that they doubted the official explanation for 9-11 based on the formal university education of the supposed hijackers. I know that the fact that two of the hijackers failed out of the flight school they attended is mentioned in serious debates. Is this what you are maybe referring to?
Also, the Boeing 747 is quite a bit larger than the Boeing 757.
Again, I don't know what you are talking about. What is your point? How does this invalidate any of the rational arguments which posit that 9-11 was an inside job?
As for the Pentagon hit, there was tons of debris, and they DID hit plenty of other things on the way in, including several fences, cars, and a generator.
Ah. The Above Top Secret write-up. Granted, the editor worked hard to create his site and he tries to think clearly, but there are many flaws with his various arguments.
Here's a site which offers a point by point rebuttal which has more data and far greater clarity of thinking.
Perhaps that can help.
-FL