Revvie®
Main Eventer
Somewhere between Reality, and the Absurd
Joined on: Jun 29, 2005 1:04:26 GMT -5
Posts: 4,327
|
Post by Revvie® on Mar 5, 2011 19:46:16 GMT -5
So the first several questions there's no answer. The next questions are non-answers. And nothing is going to happen in 2012, but the government is covering it up. Do you read or just skim...?
|
|
|
Post by Oskanowski on Mar 5, 2011 19:52:00 GMT -5
So the first several questions there's no answer. The next questions are non-answers. And nothing is going to happen in 2012, but the government is covering it up. Do you read or just skim...? He just trolls.So the first several questions there's no answer. The next questions are non-answers. And nothing is going to happen in 2012, but the government is covering it up. Oh the answers are there, you just don't read to find them. I did answer everything, you just asked dumb questions that can't be answered with a yes or no. You said " Do you believe that the government is involved in any way with covering any of this up? " Any, you didn't state it was with 2012...
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Mar 5, 2011 20:39:51 GMT -5
Fair enough. Last question wasn't phrased the best. What specifically is the government trying to cover up?
|
|
Revvie®
Main Eventer
Somewhere between Reality, and the Absurd
Joined on: Jun 29, 2005 1:04:26 GMT -5
Posts: 4,327
|
Post by Revvie® on Mar 5, 2011 21:09:23 GMT -5
Fair enough. Last question wasn't phrased the best. What specifically is the government trying to cover up? I'm pretty sure hes talking about aliens but you know....im just guessing by what I read. where he said that...and so i took his word and assumed that he was just reanswering the same basic question at the end.
|
|
|
Post by Oskanowski on Mar 5, 2011 21:09:55 GMT -5
Fair enough. Last question wasn't phrased the best. What specifically is the government trying to cover up? Already answered that." Do you believe the government is covering up alien visitations? - yes "
|
|
|
Post by Hurricane on Mar 5, 2011 23:08:17 GMT -5
Because your arguments are usually irrelevent to whoever questions you. For example, my last reply in this thread simply stated that because people make claims they've seen UFOs, doesn't make it cold hard evidence. That is 100% NOT proof. You went on a rant about how I have no proof that they don't exist. Buddy, I am open to UFOs and aliens, I never stated they don't exist. I stated that people claiming they have seen stuff is NOT proof, contrary to your belief, and no matter how many people claim to have seen it. I do understand a lot of what you are trying to push through, and I am not opposing to a lot of what you say, but a lot of claims you make are narrow-minded and ignorant, because you look way too far into everything and make out things are proof, when in reality they are far from proving anything. Didn't you state that reading them was irrelevant? & I quoted you and replied with, basically reading them isn't irrelevant because it's people's jobs to go through these cases, as well as the ones they can figure out is explained and the ones they can't go in the unexplained category which just makes their proof they have of what they seen more like it is truth, but yet it don't mean it's there.
& then you stated that you could make a convincing UFO story with my friends and hand in it and you'd be all over it - which again, of course people would be all over it, it's their job.I said that him reading it or not was irrelevent as to whether the cases were proof or not. They could be very convincing, but even so, how is it proof in any way, shape or form? When he reads it, does it mean it becomes proof? That's what I meant, I wasn't implying the people who read the stories are irrelevent.
|
|
|
Post by Oskanowski on Mar 5, 2011 23:39:52 GMT -5
Didn't you state that reading them was irrelevant? & I quoted you and replied with, basically reading them isn't irrelevant because it's people's jobs to go through these cases, as well as the ones they can figure out is explained and the ones they can't go in the unexplained category which just makes their proof they have of what they seen more like it is truth, but yet it don't mean it's there.
& then you stated that you could make a convincing UFO story with my friends and hand in it and you'd be all over it - which again, of course people would be all over it, it's their job. I said that him reading it or not was irrelevent as to whether the cases were proof or not. They could be very convincing, but even so, how is it proof in any way, shape or form? When he reads it, does it mean it becomes proof? That's what I meant, I wasn't implying the people who read the stories are irrelevent. It makes it seem more as proof to what they reported being true when they've filed it under unexplained when they " can't explain " it then explained. It doesn't mean it's an alien in a flying saucer, just unexplained. But then again, all these files were released yet the Rendlesham Forest incident was not. I find it very funny, it seems this certain incident was " destroyed. " I'm not sure where the irrelevant comes in anywhere. The people reading the files, examining them, etc.. Makes the decision of where they should go. If I have a file in front of me, read it over, say it's one without video/images and just the text and maybe a drawing they did or maybe they filled out a form somewhat like this: farm1.static.flickr.com/12/18624475_7e14599337_z.jpg?zz=1if it sounds like something I've heard of before that I already know where it goes, I file it, or you look over past reports from around whichever area the report was sent from, see if anything matches up.. etc. Examine handwriting, seeing if it's just a hoax with past reports of the same handwriting. They examine it all, and decide where it should go.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Mar 6, 2011 10:01:50 GMT -5
Unexplained reports don't prove a single thing. You could have a report of a flying object over New York City and every single person in New York City could file a report about it. You might have no explanation for the object. That doesn't prove the object is alien. All those reports would prove nothing other than that something flew over New York City and no one knew what it was.
|
|
Revvie®
Main Eventer
Somewhere between Reality, and the Absurd
Joined on: Jun 29, 2005 1:04:26 GMT -5
Posts: 4,327
|
Post by Revvie® on Mar 6, 2011 10:07:20 GMT -5
I said that him reading it or not was irrelevent as to whether the cases were proof or not. They could be very convincing, but even so, how is it proof in any way, shape or form? When he reads it, does it mean it becomes proof? That's what I meant, I wasn't implying the people who read the stories are irrelevent. It makes it seem more as proof to what they reported being true when they've filed it under unexplained when they " can't explain " it then explained. It doesn't mean it's an alien in a flying saucer, just unexplained. But then again, all these files were released yet the Rendlesham Forest incident was not. I find it very funny, it seems this certain incident was " destroyed. " I'm not sure where the irrelevant comes in anywhere. The people reading the files, examining them, etc.. Makes the decision of where they should go. If I have a file in front of me, read it over, say it's one without video/images and just the text and maybe a drawing they did or maybe they filled out a form somewhat like this: farm1.static.flickr.com/12/18624475_7e14599337_z.jpg?zz=1if it sounds like something I've heard of before that I already know where it goes, I file it, or you look over past reports from around whichever area the report was sent from, see if anything matches up.. etc. Examine handwriting, seeing if it's just a hoax with past reports of the same handwriting. They examine it all, and decide where it should go. This is for hulk, who still cant read lol
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Mar 6, 2011 13:57:21 GMT -5
Ugh. It's insanely frustrating.
First, Oskankowski says, "It makes it seem more as proof to what they reported being true when they've filed it under unexplained "
But he also says, "the ones they can figure out is explained and the ones they can't go in the unexplained category which just makes their proof they have of what they seen more like it is truth"
The fact is there is not a single shred of proof of aliens whatsoever. So tons of eyewitness reports don't add to anything.
|
|
|
Post by Oskanowski on Mar 6, 2011 14:04:11 GMT -5
Ugh. It's insanely frustrating. First, Oskankowski says, "It makes it seem more as proof to what they reported being true when they've filed it under unexplained " But he also says, "the ones they can figure out is explained and the ones they can't go in the unexplained category which just makes their proof they have of what they seen more like it is truth" The fact is there is not a single shred of proof of aliens whatsoever. So tons of eyewitness reports don't add to anything. And nobody said anywhere that it was aliens. I forgot to add the word " seem " after seen. That's all it's doing is making what they reported seem more like it's on their side when professional examiners look at the case and can't figure it out themselves, thus putting it in unexplained. But, if you would read, for once... Which you don't do. You'd see where I said " It doesn't mean it's an alien in a flying saucer, just unexplained. "
I wish we would release our UFO files, you know we have probably more than everyone else. Might happen in next few years. Check this out.
news.yahoo.com/s/digitaltrends/nasascientistfindsevidenceofalienlife
NASA scientist finds evidence of alien life ^
|
|
Airwave
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Dec 11, 2010 8:13:48 GMT -5
Posts: 197
|
Post by Airwave on Mar 6, 2011 15:52:52 GMT -5
The fact is there is not a single shred of proof of aliens whatsoever. So tons of eyewitness reports don't add to anything. Are you serious? Your skeptisim really blinds you. Theres tons of evidence of Alien visitation and abductions all over the world. Not to mention archeological evidence. Do you even take the time to study reports? 30 years ago you would of sounded as "smart" as you think you are, but these days if you dont see the writing on the wall (the fact that inter-demensional beings are coming into this reality) then your just plain ignorant. You seem like the kind of person that believes anything the government tells you. Which makes your arguments not valid from the get go.
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Mar 6, 2011 16:03:08 GMT -5
i've always found it humorous that wf's self-titled token skeptic is a firm religious believer and hulkamaniac.
skeptical, sure...of things he chooses to be skeptic about to confirm his own beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Mar 6, 2011 17:15:26 GMT -5
The fact is there is not a single shred of proof of aliens whatsoever. So tons of eyewitness reports don't add to anything. Are you serious? Your skeptisim really blinds you. Theres tons of evidence of Alien visitation and abductions all over the world. Not to mention archeological evidence. Do you even take the time to study reports? 30 years ago you would of sounded as "smart" as you think you are, but these days if you dont see the writing on the wall (the fact that inter-demensional beings are coming into this reality) then your just plain ignorant. You seem like the kind of person that believes anything the government tells you. Which makes your arguments not valid from the get go. Once again, reports do not equal proof. There were once tons of reports about mermaids. Do mermaids exist? No. Also, that NASA report was pretty thoroughly discredited by the scientific community once it came out. The methodology the study used was extremely sketchy.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Mar 6, 2011 17:24:46 GMT -5
i've always found it humorous that wf's self-titled token skeptic is a firm religious believer and hulkamaniac. skeptical, sure...of things he chooses to be skeptic about to confirm his own beliefs. There is a big difference in believing in something when there's no evidence for it one way or the other and claiming there's proof of something when there's not. You won't find me claiming that I can prove God exists. There's no evidence for that. If you want to believe that aliens are visiting us fine. If you claim that you can prove aliens are visiting us then I'm going to call you on that as there's no evidence for it whatsoever.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 1, 2024 2:30:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2011 17:49:47 GMT -5
Because I have seen it all when it comes to UFO's (I believe without a doubt they are real), the only thing that surprises me about this story is that the Rendelsdam (Spelling?) Air Force Base UFO Incident's files have gone "missing."
|
|