Who likes talking about UFO stuff?
-
I don't see it discussed much in bioenergetic circles. Maybe because RPF is a religious nutcase forum and it's threatening to them.
I've never heard Ray say anything about apart from one comment where he kind of dismissed it as a government propaganda weapon. Roddy said Peat made some remarks about Roswell, how the truth might be weirder than the official story etc. I don't think he read the definitive Roswell account by Friedman and Berliner, an excellent book.
James Fox's documentaries are really good. That missing 414- the UFO connection was also excellent.
-
@Hando-Jin UFOs are fake. Somehow they only kidnap occultist weirdos, weed smokers, and fetishists. No sane person ever had been kidnapped by UFO which says a lot.
That aliens exist is not a new idea, already in Ancient Greece Democritus and some Epicureans believed in many occupied worlds (i.e., aliens). Rightly, they were mocked by Aristotle and other smart people, and their ideas almost forgotten for houndreds of years in Europe until Renaissance.
Moreover, it is completely unscientific position to claim that they exists and especially that they ever visited Earth. It was widely popular that Marsians exist in 18th and 19th century, that with telescopes they can see canals and what not, that it is a matter of time till we have definitive proof of extraterrestrials (same talking point as today) -- Of course it was all fake.
It is statistically unlikely that life exists on other planets (especially those close enough to us); worse, there is no sound scientific explanation on how life started so speculating that life exist on other planets is pure fantasy. But even so, the distances that they would have to travel are too great for anyone to cross. Black holes and tachyons are fake and so are worm holes, so no Star Wars-like space jumps or whatever. Probably, that's why Ray didn't talk about it much.
If sci-fi would not exist, probably no one would think aliens are real.
Adam Curtis talks about UFO being gov. prop. in HyperNormalization.
Lastly, Christianity is not threatened by UFO because, unlike God, UFOs are fake. I will also mention for Christians reading that it is unquestionably a heresy to believe in aliens especially for Catholics.
-
I like talking about it to expose its psy-op potential
Holograms
Holographs
Project BBAlthough some respectable people support this idea-
I stand with Peat -
"You will know them by their fruits."
- "Heaven's Gate": the largest mass suicide in USA history undertaken to "meet the ETs".
- The Solar Temple: mass suicides and murders motivated by "transit" to other planet to meet ETs.
- Aleister Crowley was contacted by an "alien" (demon) called Lam. His drawing of it influenced the common depiction of aliens.
- Scientologies have their own alien called Xenu.
- Aum Supreme Truth/Aum Shinrikyo/Aleph is a Japanese occult and terrorist sect responsible for Tokyo subway sarin attack believes in space missions, astral travel, and reincarnation on other planets.
- Aetherius Society while did not kill anyone one (yet) promotes ET-belief and perform pagan-like worship of ETs.
UFOs/ETs is a pagan religion (i.e., demon worship) coming from occultism, New Age-ism, hinduism/yoga. It often engages in pagan worship, hindu inspired practices or mass suicides and murders; unsurprisingly, it tries to rationalise this with parapsychology or nonsense like "intra-dimensions". That's why all rituals to contact ETs are no different from demon rituals. Most of kidnapped people engage in those and they experience is almost always perverse and sexual and if persistent they spiral down into madness.
Not only is UFO unscientific, it is also harmful to individual and society.
-
@zawisza said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
@Hando-Jin UFOs are fake. Somehow they only kidnap occultist weirdos, weed smokers, and fetishists. No sane person ever had been kidnapped by UFO which says a lot.
Completely false. The most infamous abduction accounts come from entirely sane people, The Betty and Barney Hill incident, Travis Walden etc
A Harvard professor of psychiatry went from thinking it was nonsense to accepting the accounts as a real.
In the early 1990s, Mack commenced a decade-plus psychological study of 200 men and women who reported recurrent alien encounter experiences...He initially suspected that such persons were suffering from mental illness, but when no obvious pathologies were present in the persons he interviewed, his interest was piqued
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_E._MackThat aliens exist is not a new idea, already in Ancient Greece Democritus and some Epicureans believed in many occupied worlds (i.e., aliens). Rightly, they were mocked by Aristotle and other smart people, and their ideas almost forgotten for houndreds of years in Europe until Renaissance.
Whether it's new or not doesn't have much bearing on it's reality.
There are accounts of flying discs in roman literature, wood carvings depicting ufos of the same shape seen today.
Moreover, it is completely unscientific position to claim that they exists and especially that they ever visited Earth.
There is overwhelming evidence and numerous scientific investigations into the phenomenon.
Project Sign, Project Grudge, and Project Blue Book – Air Force UFO Research Programs (1947-1969)
https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/project-blue-book/Condon Report
https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/tag/condon-report/Canary Islands ufo report
https://bibliotecavirtual.defensa.gob.es/BVMDefensa/exp_ovni/i18n/consulta/registro.do?control=BMDB20160069082A memo from Air Force General Nathan Twining:
*2. It is the opinion that:
a. The phenomenon is something real and not visionary or fictitious.
b. There are objects probably approximating the shape of a disc, of such appreciable size as to appear to be as large as man-made aircraft.
c. There is a possibility that some of the incidents may be caused by natural phenomena, such as meteors.
d. The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability (particularly in roll), and motion which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely.
It was widely popular that Marsians exist in 18th and 19th century, that with telescopes they can see canals and what not, that it is a matter of time till we have definitive proof of extraterrestrials (same talking point as today) -- Of course it was all fake.
Incorrect assumptions about astronomy from the 19th century don't answer the question about whether or not there is evidence of ufos. It's a strange argument.
there is no sound scientific explanation on how life started so speculating that life exist on other planets is pure fantasy.
'we don't know so it can't be possible'
lol, talk about some 19th century thinking.
Do you understand how unlikely life is to survive in a planetary system with only one star, such as ours due to the nature of extinction level events? and that binary star systems which are far more common are more likely to have life on them?
If sci-fi would not exist, probably no one would think aliens are real.
except for the large volumes of evidence that you've apparently never seen a shred of.
Lastly, Christianity is not threatened by UFO because, unlike God, UFOs are fake.
Ah, now I know the root of your opposition.
The government faking thousands of photographs, video footage and testimonies from high quality witnesses all over the world is approximately schizophrenic.
-
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
no obvious pathologies were present
Means nothing. Doesn't contradict occult, rituals, drugs, or hypnosis. Moreover, you can find dozens articles on Google scholar suggesting brain abnormalities.
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
A memo from Air Force General Nathan Twining
a, b, c I have no problem with, and neither with "reports" or "sightings". That someone saw something and then says its UFO is not a scientific evidence. d can be true because at times these are demonic as can be seen by purely negative fruits or UFOs or one's "fascination" with it.
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
Incorrect assumptions about astronomy from the 19th century don't answer the question about whether or not there is evidence of ufos. It's a strange argument.
It's not strange. It shows that this idea lived long and it's for long (always) been devoid of evidence since it's an ideology and not scientific theory or even hypothesis.
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
binary star systems which are far more common are more likely to have life on them?
Completely arbitrary percentages convince no one. As I said since it is not scientifically known how life started or what's truly necessary for it in planetary scheme you can not estimate probabilities - they are meaningless. "this planet is more likely to have life than that" is unscientific nonsense guided by ideological blind faith in aliens.
Moreover, even if it wasn't complete nonsense;
- probabilities one generally speaks of are extremely small and since universe is not infinite they still often do not suffice for reasonable postulate.
- where is the closest binary star system or any planet that has "high likelyhood of having life"? What's the probability that they would harbour life, and more, life more technologically advanced than us? And how can it be possible to travel these distances? There's a reason why ET promoters have to escape to scientifically sounding gobbledygook like "intradimensions", worm holes, etc.
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
high quality witnesses all over the world
kek and kek
-
Sage
-
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
@zawisza hi, why do you communly delete your comments?
-
@Hando-Jin Hi,
It can be entertaining to watch stuff about ufos,
Yet some aspects of the way the idea of ufo existence is partly promoted seem questionable, such as:the characterization of ufos travelers as beings of high consciousness of which we must be worthy, attaining a high degree of consciousness (such as "christ consciouness", "oneness consciouness", "raising kundalini") high enough ourselves to be able to communicate with them and/or receive their potential benefits
The fact that some of the people who advocate this don't seem to me to have the physiognomy, words and intonations that correspond to an energetic state of "onesness consciouness"
The fact that these two themes seem to have become more popular in recent years
And the fact that a lot of the arguments are claims, or claims about other people's claims, with a tendency to seem to think that since some of these people are "high status" then their claims are more credible and/or reality
Thrive for the highest degree of energy
-
@Hando-Jin UFOs and Aliens (different topics) are entertaining. I've enjoyed all the documentaries I've seen produced but only when looking at it as entertainment and not from an academic perspective. The UFO phenomena is a curiosity whereas the Alien phenomena when tied to it is what usually leads people down, what I think are, psychologically damaging rabbit holes.
For example, there is a proper way to contemplate and discuss metaphysics and philosophy without needing to introduce Aliens. Yet, for many on the internet their first introduction to any non-mainstream academic field is through UFOs, Aliens, hallucinogens or some adjacent introduction. And it becomes difficult for them to conceive of things with the kind of intellectual purity that's required to approach or engage a topic appropriately.
And that's similar, if I digress a bit, to what's happening on RPF now with its religious dogmatism wherein religious conceptions (i.e. "Satan") are divested of their etymological, philological variation, metaphysical and so forth content and erroneously stapled to a dietary fad or theory about nutrition. This makes thinking as something constructive, dialectical and unwaveringly hesitant and experimental (insofar as we are contingent, imperfect, non-omniscient beings) impossible.
-
@zawisza said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
no obvious pathologies were present
Means nothing.
lol, ok. We'll just ignore the judgement of somebody trained to detect mental illnesses.
a, b, c I have no problem with, and neither with "reports" or "sightings". That someone saw something and then says its UFO is not a scientific evidence. d can be true because at times these are demonic as can be seen by purely negative fruits or UFOs or one's "fascination" with it.
They're real but you can only interpret them through your religious derangement.
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
Incorrect assumptions about astronomy from the 19th century don't answer the question about whether or not there is evidence of ufos. It's a strange argument.
It's not strange. It shows that this idea lived long and it's for long (always) been devoid of evidence since it's an ideology and not scientific theory or even hypothesis.
How would you know it's devoid of evidence? You've never read a single book, read a single report, listened to a single lecture about the topic.
Anything scientific involves discussion of evidence. You've done everything but discuss the evidence, opting to instead engage in ridicule and speculation about probabilities.
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
binary star systems which are far more common are more likely to have life on them?
"this planet is more likely to have life than that" is unscientific nonsense guided by ideological blind faith in aliens.
You like talking about 'science' but strangely never post any
Extraterrestrial Life May be Common around Binary Stars
Low-mass binary stars could make the best hosts for alien life because their combined energy extends the habitable region farther away than would exist around a single starLow-mass twins could make the best hosts, because their combined energy extends the habitable region farther away than would exist around a single star.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/extraterrestrial-life-may/Moreover, even if it wasn't complete nonsense;
- probabilities one generally speaks of are extremely small and since universe is not infinite they still often do not suffice for reasonable postulate.
- where is the closest binary star system or any planet that has "high likelyhood of having life"? What's the probability that they would harbour life, and more, life more technologically advanced than us? And how can it be possible to travel these distances? There's a reason why ET promoters have to escape to scientifically sounding gobbledygook like "intradimensions", worm holes, etc.
It's easy to travel long distance if you can produce gravity. This is been known for a long time.
-
@Truth said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
@Hando-Jin Hi,
Yet some aspects of the way the idea of ufo existence is partly promoted seem questionable,That's true of just about anything in life.
-
@Hando-Jin in my experience, it is not.
What do you think it changes that this is true for everything in life for you?
Thrive for the highest degree of energy
-
@jwayne said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
For example, there is a proper way to contemplate and discuss metaphysics and philosophy without needing to introduce Aliens.
The UFO/alien topic is neither metaphysics or philosophy.
-
@Truth said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
@Hando-Jin So?
Exactly. What's your point? That some of it is not credible? That's not that much of a big deal.
-
@Hando-Jin some aspects of the ufos stuff I've been exposed to that is on popular channels or platforms such as Netflix, such as Steven Greer's claims, don't necessary have a high degree of coherence, credibility, are partly based on claims or claims of others, and may also make us wonder why it's promoted in this way, and what net negative effect it can have on the majority of people to be exposed to these ideas in this way
Thrive for the highest degree of energy
-
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
Extraterrestrial Life May be Common around Binary Stars
"may"
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
Low-mass binary stars could make the best hosts for alien life because their combined energy extends the habitable region farther away than would exist around a single star
"could"
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
Low-mass twins could make the best hosts, because their combined energy extends the habitable region farther away than would exist around a single star.
"could"
I.e., they don't and won't. This is not science. This is speculation.
You don't want me to talk about probabilities but you brought them up with "binary stars are more likely to have life". And these articles do the same.
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
It's easy to travel long distance if you can produce gravity. This is been known for a long time.
It is been known for a long time that gravity can not be "produced". What does it even mean? Do you want to create matter? What's next anti-gravity and using dark matter for fuel? ET-believer can not but claim such ridiculous things because the worldview is incoherent and based on sci-fi novels. How am I suppose to then "post science" if you come out with things like that? It's pure speculation, fantasy world. No reputable journal would ever talk about this nonsense.
-
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
@jwayne said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
For example, there is a proper way to contemplate and discuss metaphysics and philosophy without needing to introduce Aliens.
The UFO/alien topic is neither metaphysics or philosophy.
Of course not. Yet many are compelled to "research" the former before the latter. Thus the inquiry (and the field) gets distorted almost from the beginning. This isn't by necessity but exaggerated when the UFO/Alien topic tries to assimilate itself to history, religion or something else. And this is what makes it very difficult to breach in a serious way, at least in my experience.
