Jump to content

- - - - -

The proof of existance of ufo's !?

  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#41 Hippie3



  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 25 February 2008 - 07:43 PM

explain plz how a 'mass hallucination' occurs ?
i don't believe there is such a thing,
if several people see it
that's not a 'hallucination'.
you're misusing the term,
in my opinion.
an optical illusion is not a hallucination,
mis-perception & misinterpretation is not hallucination either.
a hallucination is a false sensory input,
seeing or hearing when there is nothing to see or hear.
hallucinations are a sign of mental illness or possibly drugs
and cannot possibly explain events like the mexico city sightings some years ago.
the only mass hallucinations i've ever heard documented
are cases involving mass poisonings from ergot-laced bread, mushroom soup, etc.
seeing a light in the sky would only be a hallucination IF there were no light.
the wiki definition of mass hysteria does not seem to fit either,
as people with no common factor in different places and time
cannot spread hysteria from one to another.

#42 Guest_floppypeter_*

  • Guest

Posted 25 February 2008 - 08:10 PM

sorry i screwed up the link try it again hip. It may get my point across...

#43 Hippie3



  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 25 February 2008 - 08:53 PM

not really.
notably mr. valle'e is not a psychologist
and therefore doesn't seem qualified to make his argument,
which argument proceeds from false or misleading assumptions.

for example
he cites historical sightings over hundreds of years
to show the ufo phenomenon is not limited to modern times-
seeming to assume that means they cannot be ET
but logically that does not follow -
there's no cause to assume
that ET didn't have advanced technology thousands of years ago and may have visited.

his other points are equally fallacious-
his first point about the number of sightings
being more than needed for a survey
assumes therefore that ET's purpose is survey
but there's no basis to make that assumption.

it's a common form of false argument
to set up a case then knock it down
known as the 'straw man' argument.

obviously there are too many for a survey
so by assuming that survey is the purpose
he easily moves to the false conclusion
that ET cannot be visiting.

that is not good science.

#44 Doctor D

Doctor D

    (Not a real doctor)

  • Honorary Former Staff
  • 2,259 posts


Posted 25 February 2008 - 11:03 PM

TV - I was able to clean up one of those images for ya and resize it. Pretty good, huh? So that's what happened to that little guy!


Attached Thumbnails

  • 3Feb%2008.real.big.jpg
  • 3Feb%2008.real.jpg
  • 3Feb%2008.jpg

#45 Hippie3



  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 25 February 2008 - 11:10 PM


#46 TVCasualty


    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 15,078 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 26 February 2008 - 12:23 PM

Yeah, that was funny. :D

So, anybody got any ideas as to what the heck those lights were? I'm guessing that digital cameras are incapable of recording hallucinations, either personal or mass, so they must've been some thing.

#47 Hippie3



  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 26 February 2008 - 12:34 PM

no way to know
but judging from the symmetry of the lights
and the colors
i'd guess it's man-made, whatever it is.

#48 Guest_floppypeter_*

  • Guest

Posted 26 February 2008 - 01:25 PM

Hip, my interpretation of dr. vallees work is that we are not sure what is going on , that their are many possibilities and each one merits being studied further. I don't comprehend any dogma touted over any other in his work. It sounds like he's saying we need to look at a combination multiple scenarios to describe the phenomenon in a way that's universally accepted

it is the view of the author that research on UFOs need not be restricted to these two alternatives (space travelling ET's or Natural Phenomenon i.e. ball lightning & swamp gas). On the contrary, the accumulated data base exhibits several patterns tending to indicate that UFOs are real, represent a previously unrecognized phenomenon, and that the facts do not support the common concept of "space visitors." Five specific arguments articulated here contradict the ETH:

  • unexplained close encounters are far more numerous than required for any physical survey of the earth;
  • the humanoid body structure of the alleged "aliens" is not likely to have originated on another planet and is not biologically adapted to space travel;
  • the reported behavior in thousands of abduction reports contradicts the hypothesis of genetic or scientific experimentation on humans by an advanced race;
  • the extension of the phenomenon throughout recorded human history demonstrates that UFOs are not a contemporary phenomenon; and
  • the apparent ability of UFOs to manipulate space and time suggests radically different and richer alternatives."

#49 Hippie3



  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 26 February 2008 - 01:36 PM

it's those 5 specific arguments that fall short, imo.
but it's easy to agree that more study is needed.
but when he starts talking about abduction reports
that is not the same as sightings,
the humanoid form reported by contactees is
yet another issue that is independent of sightings.
then when he starts about manipulating time
he's gone way off the deep end.
these are all 'strawman' type arguments,
he's taken the lunatic fringe and used them
as proof that sightings are not ET
but it doesn't follow logically.
he completely avoids the issue of the actual sightings
by ordinary people.

#50 Guest_floppypeter_*

  • Guest

Posted 26 February 2008 - 01:47 PM

yes his #'d arguments are weak at best, I agree

If you look in to his work, he talks about systems of control

open and closed systems of control.

He argues that the data curve of the frequency of ufo activity mirrors that of a control system of some type. In some ways its like saying and apple kinda looks like an orange. So what?

His next question was; if its a control system, whether it was a closed system like a jail or a open control system like a university ?

at any rate its thought provoking stuff

#51 zannanera



  • Expired Member
  • 12 posts

Posted 27 February 2008 - 01:51 AM

I highly recommend the little-known documentary Dreamland - it reports on the scientist who worked at Area 51 for several years at high clearances for the purpose of later exposing as many secrets as possible to the public. Also, it has some footage that will not only make you think, it'll make you wonder..

ps: * most of the video capture is of the government testing their own vehicles based on various domestic and... extraforeign technologies, but there are definitely shots of what i can only describe as gravity based propulsion in bursts that seem to make these fucking fuzzy blue orbs dance around the sky like you were just smacked in the head with a brick - watch it, then deny it. ^^


#52 ifyoucouldsee


    I'm a igloo

  • Free Member
  • 124 posts

Posted 27 February 2008 - 03:26 AM

One time on B+ me and some friends saw a spaceship...

#53 Guest_floppypeter_*

  • Guest

Posted 27 February 2008 - 09:49 AM

welcome iycs !!!!!

#54 Mycorama



  • Expired Member
  • 640 posts

Posted 03 March 2008 - 05:44 PM

awsome thread, actually read everyones comments.

the truth is out there.:mistrust:

#55 Coopdog



  • OG VIP
  • 3,445 posts


Awards Bar:

Posted 14 April 2018 - 03:43 AM

Posting just to keep my place here so I can go back to it easily. Too tired to focus on the posts tonight and want to read this with my full attention. 

  • Alder Logs and Spooner like this

#56 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 15,028 posts


Awards Bar:

Posted 14 April 2018 - 03:41 PM

I don't think I have ever seen this thread.   I will have check back later too.

Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!