Guest LarryP Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Some fun facts for you to chew on, Larry. Sol is just one star system in the local stellar group which consists of fifty stars and is thirty light years across in a galaxy that is somewhere around a hundred-twenty light years across and comprised of a hundred to four billion stars with an estimated seventeen billion earth-like planets with potentially as many earth-like planets in each of the five-hundred billion galaxies estimated to exist in the universe. It is 4.5 light years to our nearest stellar neighbor. How likely is it do you think we're being visited again by an alien race again? It isn't a matter of "likely", it is a definite. Which is why over 400 high ranking government, military and intelligence officials and insiders have testified to having personal knowledge of government involvement with UFO's and ET technology, and the cover ups and secrecy surrounding it. Then there are all the commercial and military pilot reports: http://www.narcap.org/files/narcap_revised_tr-4.pdf So chew on those fun facts.
Cotter Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 @Leftfoot, I would really like to have a discussion of the UFO stuff, but alas, I cannot in good mind post further in this thread to discuss. Hopefully someday I'll see you in the PMP and we can carry on that discussion. Regarding BF, just b/c the powers that be don't want to discuss BF openly b/c they don't think they exist doesn't seem like a sound practice, though I would agree that is a potential issue with the phenom.
hiflier Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 (edited) Hello Leftfoot, Some fun facts for you to chew on, Larry. Sol is just one star system in the local stellar group which consists of fifty stars and is thirty light years across in a galaxy that is somewhere around a hundred-twenty light years across and comprised of a hundred to four billion stars with an estimated seventeen billion earth-like planets with potentially as many earth-like planets in each of the five-hundred billion galaxies estimated to exist in the universe. It is 4.5 light years to our nearest stellar neighbor.How likely is it do you think we're being visited again by an alien race again? You better run that by DWA. He hasn't seen any of that so he thinks none of it is real. Edited February 24, 2014 by hiflier
Guest DWA Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 hiflier: are you following me around now? This is kinda reminiscent of Thermalman. You're not him, right?
hiflier Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Hello DWA, What are you getting at? You and I have had many conversations on this Forum.
Guest LarryP Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Regarding BF, just b/c the powers that be don't want to discuss BF openly b/c they don't think they exist doesn't seem like a sound practice About as sound a practice as the FAA leaving it up to NARCAP to catalog, analyze and report near misses, close pacing, disrupted avionics and collisions with UAP's . The US Fish and Wildlife service knows that it can't manage BF. So their only option is to pretend that they don't exist.
Guest DWA Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 ^^^If it's easy for them to ignore something ("plausible deniability"), bureaucrats will do it. This is no Russian Army Behind Grassy Knoll conspiracy theory. It's bureaucracy, the world over.
Guest Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 (edited) It isn't a matter of "likely", it is a definite.I'll be generous and go with the lowest estimate of the number of stars there are in the galaxy. That's a hundred billion stars in the galaxy. Assume only one of the estimated seventeen billion earth-like planets for any given star, assume that they are all M-class, you then have 17% of the galaxy that's inhabitable by life as we know it. That seems significant, but remember that Earth is just one planet in a galaxy that is a hundred-twenty thousand light years across. Earth barely makes up a percentage of a percentage of a percentage of the entire galaxy. That makes the likelihood of us being visited being visited by alien life at any point in our development very remote, to say the least. LarryP said: Which is why over 400 high ranking government, military and intelligence officials and insiders have testified to having personal knowledge of government involvement with UFO's and ET technology, and the cover ups and secrecy surrounding it. The government, military, and intelligence agencies are comprised of millions of individuals. Four hundred is about the number of people I would expect to be making fringe claims. Your argument is rejected. LarryP said: Then there are all the commercial and military pilot reports: http://www.narcap.org/files/narcap_revised_tr-4.pdf So chew on those fun facts. You don't have any facts. All you have is an unverified list of carefully selected claims with all the falsifiable information removed. And still all it is able to muster up is a few thousand 'unexplained' instances over the course of several years... Mere penuts compared to the millions of flights that occur worldwide, most without a hitch. Your argument is rejected.Hopefully someday I'll see you in the PMP and we can carry on that discussion.PMP?Regarding BF, just b/c the powers that be don't want to discuss BF openly b/c they don't think they exist doesn't seem like a sound practice, though I would agree that is a potential issue with the phenom.It doesn't sound like a sound practice to me, either. But it gives them plausible deniability, so there is that. Edited February 24, 2014 by Leftfoot
Cotter Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Hi Leftfoot PMP = BFF premium access section. The rules are a bit more relaxed about discussing the taboo subjects and general thread derailment. And I agree that plausible deniability is a powerful tool.
Guest LarryP Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 The government, military, and intelligence agencies are comprised of millions of individuals. Four hundred is about the number of people I would expect to be making fringe claims. Over 400 "high ranking" individuals. And what you personally "expect" is nothing more than subjective opinion. The same applies to what you consider to be "fringe claims". You don't have any facts. All you have is an unverified list of carefully selected claims with all the falsifiable information removed. Let me get this straight. You're saying that NARCAP has no "facts" and all it has catalogued is an "unverified list of carefully selected claims with all the falsifiable information removed" ? That's not an argument. You're just making stuff up.
Guest Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Over 400 "high ranking" individuals. And what you personally "expect" is nothing more than subjective opinion. It isn't subjective at all. You will see the same amount of people in any similarly sized group making fringe claims. LarryP said: The same applies to what you consider to be "fringe claims". Also demonstrably untrue: Wikipedia said: A fringe theory is an idea or a collection of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view. It can include work done to the appropriate level of scholarship in a field of study but only supported by a minority of practitioners, to more dubious work. Examples include pseudoscience (ideas that purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support), conspiracy theories, unproven claims about alternative medicine, pseudohistory and so forth. Some fringe theories may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations. Fringe claims seem to be fairly well defined to me. LarryP said: Let me get this straight. You're saying that NARCAP has no "facts" and all it has catalogued is an "unverified list of carefully selected claims with all the falsifiable information removed" ? Right so far. LarryP said: That's not an argument. Also true. It's a conclusion, not an argument. LarryP said: You're just making stuff up. And then you make a right turn straight into Wrongsville. Let's say someone was to generate a similar list of Bigfoot sightings with about the same level of verifiable, substainiated information as your NARCAP list. Would you be as willing to accept it as uncritically as you have the NARCAP list?
Incorrigible1 Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Kids: Don't wear tinfoil helmets while attending school. It interferes with your studies and leads one to accept outre theories.
hiflier Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) Hello All,Collisions with UAP's are rare. The UK only had a record of one- EVER. It happened in 1984 and in 1986 a book came out and one of the stories was about that incident- a supposed collision with an "UFO". I'm bringing this up for a reason, soon to be addressed. The Report went on to say that the aircraft suffered some damage to the fuselage and two or three pieces of debris landed inside the cockpit that were later examined. But the results were never published.Stay with me here because this is pertinent to the topic. Anyway, the mystery lived for 28 years during which it was cited time and time again as proof of UFO's because not only was there a report filed BUT there was also physical evidence. I was part of a five-person investigative team that pursued this mystery for several weeks in the summer of 2012. We SOLVED the mystery that was used in UFO circles, as proof in the literature of UFO existence, for nearly three decades.I was the one who, after much digging into archives and followuing FOIA paths, Found the smoking gun! There was INDEED a report on the analysis of the debris. Finding that report was difficult. It was available obviously but in an extremely obscure avenue in which to approach the information. The book writers could have found it had they done their research but they were happy to simply repeat the story to help sell books at conferences. That collision incident was retold hundreds of times.The debris that was found was from a Motorola 300 two-way radio used by the loaders which was accidently left in one of the engine intakes. When the plane reached altitude and leveled off the radio slipped forward and the propeller whacked it and the schrapnell penetrated the fuselage- END OF STORY! These questions immediately popped into my head. WHY didn't the equivalent to the FAA in England come forward with the truth?Why didn't the airline? Why didn't the ground crewman who left it in the intake, who was also now missing the radio? He must have guessed immediately as soon as the pilot reportes the "collision". Was this a cover-up to protect the integrity of the airline's trustworthiness in the eye of it's customers? The debris was not analysed at the airport. It was analized at the official test facilities in Farnsworth. Was the facility culpable as part of a cover-up? Was the incident simply toooo embarrassing? I don't know if any of these prospective excuses are true. The money/insurance angle looks good enough though.All I know is that it wasn't an UFO collision although it was a famous account for BEING such a collision. The group solved it practically on the 28th anniversary of the incident and I was proud to be a part of bringing the trufh to light. So in reference to the topic? Rumor and conspiratorial meanderings can be kept alive just by government NOT saying anything. So in the case of Sasquatch, who or what would stand to gain anything if it were announced officially that Sasquatch DID NOT exist? Who or what would stand to gain it it were announced that Sasquatch DID exist. And finally, what's to be gained by announcing nothing? Edited February 25, 2014 by hiflier
Guest LarryP Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) It isn't subjective at all. You will see the same amount of people in any similarly sized group making fringe claims.....Fringe claims seem to be fairly well defined to me. You don't even know the size of the group and you've failed to define "fringe". Let's say someone was to generate a similar list of Bigfoot sightings with about the same level of verifiable, substainiated information as your NARCAP list. Would you be as willing to accept it as uncritically as you have the NARCAP list? So now you're saying that the NARCAP catalog is verifiable. Thanks, for your honesty..albeit belated. Edited February 25, 2014 by LarryP
Recommended Posts