I have been trying to get the word out about this and have made posts about it at Tumblr, Bubblews, Pinterest, Twitter, Facebook, etc.
On 5th April 2014, thousands of UFO's will be invading the skies of many countries - these will not be real UFO's.
Rather, thousands of people from various countries have all vowed to take part in a giant hoax, which has been collaborated on forums regularly visited by remote control drone fans.
The idea behind the event is to show how easily people can be fooled (and of course, to discredit the real UFO phenomena).
People in countries including the UK, US, South Africa and the Netherlands will be taking part in this hoax.
Plead help to spread the word of this deception!
Well, its better than the millions that have taken part in the giant hoax known as Obama's presidency...
You get the award for the most incomprehensible segue of all HubPages. Congratulations!
Sorry to burst your bubble, mate; I'll take my humor to the adult forum and let you, Mork, and Mindy alone.
That segue would have been a bit less incomprehensible if it began with a tabloid-like headline "Obama Birth Resolved! Obama was brought to Earth by Aliens!". His alien friends are coming to complete the take-over of Earth. Watch the skies on the 5th of April, 2014.
Pretty sure it's not a hoax. It is actually happening. He is President, whether we like it or not. It is factual, I assure you.
It is factual. I've seen him on tv and he's married to the first lady so...
Why? Provided they take appropriate safety precautions I see no harm in it.
There are no safety precautions for certain people with health issues (i.e. schizophrenics, people with LongQT Syndrome, etc) plus there's the fact that mass suicides have taken place in the past because of UFO beliefs. It would be a cool event if everyone knew it was happening - but the way this is being done could have adverse health effects for many people. I am also a believer that ET UFO's are visiting this planet and such events do nothing to help the UFO disclosure movement.
The mass suicides come from cult activity which this wouldn't effect. The suicides linked to the H.G.Wells as performed by Orson Welles had no deaths linked to it.
Schizophrenia is very unlikely to cause anybody to have an episode from this kind of stimulus and the reality is that we are now sufficiently sophisticated not to panic at lights in the sky. The odd person may do, but whatever they have planned is no more likely to cause hysteria than chinese lanterns being let off.
If UFO's are visiting us it is very unlikely that these drones will be more off putting than the satellites flying around earth, the planes in the air and the other signal interence that humanity employs.
It is also true that the places where people have easy access to drone technology also have easy access to news services and the internet and people are sufficiently sophisticated to check.
Good luck to them.
I thought the hoax was a hoax! Wow, it is a real hoax. Well, that's one way to get attention.
I think the hoax is a valuable reminder to be skeptical and not leap from "object floating in the air" to "OMG aliens". Good on them.
I think its just as important to remain open minded and to realize that there are indeed also genuine UFO incidents which have happened on Earth, along with inexplicable evidence to back them up - anyone who ever studied the real official evidence we have has come to the conclusion that some (maybe up to 5%) of UFO's are of extraterrestrial origin.
I have studied them quite extensively as an offshoot of a book chapter I wrote on cattle mutilation and a absolutely did not conclude that any proportion of them are clearly alien technology. So not "anyone". An 'open mind' means accepting people come to a range of conclusions based on the same information.
Stuying cattle mutilation for one chapter of a book is minimal to 6 years research and personal experience of witnessing an alien entity and being visited by UFO's. The evidence exists, its just not very easy to find.
I get it, you don't respect the opinions of people who disagree with you--and assume you have special information or intelligence. Nevertheless, rational, informed and intelligence people do disagree with your conclusion.
I'm getting married the week after that. So they better wait
I don't understand why people waste their time trying to discredit a phenomenon that has an OVERWHELMING amount of evidence (even just the 1%-5% of unexplainable cases) to support the possibility. It's just another example of resources that should otherwise be devoted to the subject. Scientists are the worst culprits of all since they have the resources to actually do serious studies, but they allow the "giggle factor" and fear of credibility among their academic peers get in the way of serious research. (I don't count SETI scientists since they have an obvious conflict of interest regarding the phenomenon...in other words, why listen for signals if there is a possibility they are already here?). Of course there are hoaxes and a large number of reports already have a mundane explanation so am not sure why they're wasting their time or what they hope to accomplish. These will be the same people (especially SETI and other professionals adamantly opposed to even the idea of it) that will find a nice quiet rock to hide under should validity ever surface in our/their lifetime. They're just setting themselves up for failure and possibly giving gullible fanatics fuel for their fire. They'll argue that if a scientist was wrong about the possibility of interstellar mobility and the ETH then what else could they be wrong about? Not a good scenario for the future of science and physics...
I don't understand why you can't see that they/we sincerely disagree with you about how to interpret the same information--and honestly think their is no convincing evidence that aliens have come to Earth and flown around in aircraft.
I think UFOs are just that. Unidentified.
Bill Sego is right. 'Overwhelming' evidence is the word for it all right. UFOs exist by their very definition. Air pilots, for example, are coming forth now in heavy numbers to report their own encounters and sightings. As to what may happen on April the 5th, I'd rather listen to the space-rock band Temples all day than a bunch of misguided pipsqueaks. But sparkster could be right about some panic with the uninformed. Still, it's hard to believe such a hoax could be more than a ripple in the Age of the Internet. We'll see.....
Psycheskinner, that's a cop-out. Based on how the scientific method works, they should be compelled to study those cases that have NO POSSIBLE alternative explanation. That's exactly what they're afraid of. Since they are unable to come to a conclusion about it, they ignore it as though it's a non-phenomenon. That's a crime against science. The phenomenon is not going away and is only gaining ground (more cameras and more eyewitnesses). It's only a matter of time before those with the right job title, tools, and equipment are forced to at least take a closer look. Fine if "unexplained" is the only conclusion to be drawn, but it's flat out criminal for them to ignore it altogether. I can understand those "studies" that might not have a potentially scientific explanation (ghosts, astral projection, esp, etc.), but the ETH is a physical phenomenon and not something ethereal. Not only that, but what happens to those scientists who staunchly argue it isn't possible and they finally land on the White House lawn to make their presence known? Nobody knows for certain that they aren't here and the small amount of valid evidence certainly suggests something beyond even foreseeable technology is in our skies. How will they backpedal and still retain any level of credibility? By ignoring it, they are setting up science for a big fall, not to mention their own reputation and credibility. A believer will then come out and say, "well, if a scientist can be wrong about the possibility of interstellar mobility and the ETH then what else could they be wrong about?" Certainly not a good scenario for science in general and would be very embarrassing for the staunch skeptics. I'm not saying I know for certain they are here, but the 1%-5% of evidence with no other possible explanation are certainly worth further study. There's no escaping that fact...period.
Until you specify some particular cases you deem to be within the 1-5% all I am copping out of that I should take your assessment over mine just because you say so and you are obviously better than me for some reason. When you present evidence of a fact, I will consider accepting it--and not before.
Psycheskinner, I know you don't live under a rock and there is such a thing as the internet. There is a TON of cases out there that fall within the 1%-5% of best cases. Try this one for starters: http://ufos.about.com/od/bestufocasefil … cases.htm. The best example of a scientist that was hired by the government to weed out mundane reports was Dr. J. Allen Hynek. He was initially as skeptical (admittedly was hired to debunk) as any other scientist regarding the phenomenon until he actually started looking at the cases and weighing the evidence. He concluded that something beyond natural phenomenon has indeed been witnessed in our skies since the dawn of written history. A happy medium approach (neither based on gullibility/wanton belief or extreme skepticism) is all that serious UFO investigators are asking for. Nuclear physicist Stanton Friedman and optical physicist Bruce Maccabee are a couple examples of the few scientists willing to devote time and serious research to the topic. You and I have no right to say, with any certainty, that they are or aren't here since we don't have the correct tools or know-how to do the required research. The question must remain open until more are willing (or forced when something incredible does present itself in a largely populated area) to look into it further. That's all I'm saying. It is only something to be considered based on the evidence that does exist, not believed or not believed. Do we accept "wild tales" of time travel, multiple universes, string theory, black holes, quarks & neutrinos, etc by theoretical physicists until we see them with our own eyes? 100 years ago, we could have rightfully stated that none of them existed. Let's not be too hasty as the jury is certainly still out...
You still have not specified a case you think proves UFOs are alien. Shall I suggest some? Fox Lake? Shag Harbor? Micminville? Bueller? How does a big list help with that? Have I ever denied their were sighting, lots of them? No. I want to talk *specifics*.
You will note I never denied people see UFOs--only that is it reason to conclude they are alien space ships rather than accept their nature is unknown.
You leaped to thinking just hadn't read enough accounts on the apparent assumption that your way of interpreting them is the only rational way. If you pick a specific sighting, any sighting, we can find where the real difference lies.
Or you can continue to just assume I am deliberately avoiding the evidence and/or a crappy scientist (IMHO already showing we approach ambiguous data in rather different ways).
You're completely missing my point then. I'm not out to prove some UFOs are alien spacecraft. (That would be the topic of one of my next books.) Proving or claiming something as gospel is very different than leaving it open as the most plausible explanation. I'm only suggesting that people should remain open to that interpretation or else provide a SPECIFIC interpretation to the contrary for ANY of the best cases. This isn't a matter of "proof" since, at this point, none of them prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are alien ships. That's already established so I'm not going to repeat the obvious status quo. But some of the best cases certainly leave no other plausible interpretation. Keeping an open mind to the possibility is indeed the only rational way of approaching the topic. But just pulling one out of thin air, what do you think the source of the objects are in Paul Trent's photos from his farm in McMinnville Oregon? Let me ask you this? What are your parameters? What would you personally accept as proof? A decision by a jury stating that there is no other possible interpretation? Shaking hands with an alien? A theory by an optical physicist that there is no other explanation to account for what appears in a photo or video? In fact there is only one type of proof that could stand up to scrutiny...they would have to land in a highly populated area and walk out for a live interview with Scott Pelley. Case then closed. A lot of science is built on inference when no other plausible interpretation exists. That's how scientists are certain that black holes are real. You cannot directly see one, but the math and what we do see leave no other plausible conclusion. Do you believe in black holes? Does the subject matter of UFOs demand more scrutiny (when comparing it to what we knew of black holes during the 1960s, but was still a valid theory) because of the implications it would have on society? Is that why it deserves more scrutiny or skepticism than, say, the theory of evolution?
That's not entirely true, some of the best cases may indeed have either plausible, implausible or a collection of both that most likely would provide a terrestrial explanation as opposed to alien speculation. All that accomplishes is jumping to conclusions where none are available and not enough information has been provided.
And, since there is yet to be even one single case that has ever shown alien interventions of any kind to be valid or credible, why continue to assume any case of aliens is the rational approach?
There's no reason to believe the proof of alien visitations will be similar to a B rated Sci-fi movie, but the proof would certainly have to be undeniable. If alien technology allows them to accomplish the most difficult feat of any life form, that is to leave their planet and travel vast distances to our planet, they would at the very least let us know they're here. Why would they care if we still didn't know other life forms existed? If our scientists are actively searching, then it's obvious we're ready for that answer.
That's a red herring. Understanding that black holes should exist based on General Relativity is not the same thing as visiting aliens.
And yes, there are other plausible conclusions, they just haven't presented themselves.
All it takes is just one case. And, if it is plausible to assume the ETH is a valid hypothesis, who are we to assume we could comprehend their motives or reason for anonymity? It would be just as presumptuous to assume we could assume their intentions or motives as it would be for someone to say he or she is 100% certain they are of ET origin. Regardless of the approach one takes while studying the phenomenon, the ones that appear to leave no other conclusion are the only ones to be considered as a POSSIBILITY that they are what they INDEED appear to be, if only applying logic and common sense to what you are seeing mixed with a legitimate possibility we could actually produce some of the characteristics and maneuvers they display. Some cases leave NO other possible explanation other than a) eth or b) top secret military dream machines. Some valid photographs and videos that are proven to not be a hoax leave no other possible determination. The fact remains, the jury is still out. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, it is a valid possibility to consider and leave open as an interpretation. Scientists can remain in denial or as staunchly skeptical as they wish, but that approach to the topic could certainly backfire. That's really my only point. Because if they are here and do make their presence known in our lifetime, isn't it going to be very embarrassing for the staunch skeptic? Wouldn't it be harmful to science in general if they were proven wrong? How would they backpedal and retract their previous statements to the contrary and wouldn't that leave open all sorts of fanatical and personal attacks toward them? Sure they can be as critical as they want, but those of us who consider the possibility will have the last laugh...
If you investigate the posts on this thread, which seem less linear in thought process and more emotional in tone?
And something defying explanation does not mean 'aliens done it' any more that 'God done it'. Sometimes we just don't know. Don't know =/= aliens.
And yet, one case has never been brought forward that is valid from all the millions of cases provided.
The first thing we do assume is that ET is intelligent, so we would think the same way, intelligently. Hence, we would most certainly make contact with a species as advanced as humans are now, especially considering the general populace is more certainly ready to meet them.
To invoke the 'anonymity' clause is not valid anymore.
Sorry, but I've already explained that is not what we should conclude, because that is jumping to conclusions without any hard evidence. That is irresponsible and is not how science works.
That is entirely false, there are many possible explanations that simply have not come to light. You are just jumping to conclusions based on false premises.
You are jumping to conclusions again, you have no proof that is true at all.
True, and the jury is out big time, because it has absolutely nothing to go on.
Sure, but that doesn't mean we waste any more time and resources on it until some hard evidence presents itself. Consider it placed on the shelf.
Then, it's a very bad point to make because it smacks of conspiracy theory and you no longer have an argument.
LOL. So what?
Science will not be proven wrong. Science has not made an conclusive decisions on the subject to be considered right or wrong. In fact, science predicts a very high probability there are many other life forms in the universe.
By the conspiracy theorists who are already doing that anyways?
No one seems to care about that but you.
Then why did you start saying various derogatory things and arguing with me because I said something that you apparently agree with? [baffled]
I looked back through and didn't see anything derogatory or personal so am not sure what you're referring to. At least no more than your remarks to sparkster that he didn't respect other people's opinions and was being irrational and unintelligent. Any disagreement will contain some level of "derogatory" remarks from both parties. We're big boys/girls and can handle it. Since, on the surface, some reports do support the ETH (yes, an actual hypothesis popularized by physicist Edward Condon that even Carl Sagan said was possible), I see nothing wrong with giving the phenomenon (only the best cases of course) the benefit of the doubt as a POSSIBILITY.
Well your various comments about bad science and ignoring evidence sure seemed directed at me as they were in reply to my posts. And as a working scientist, that is about the worst thing you could accuse me of.
And we were not talking about possibilities, but conclusions. I have not drawn the conclusion that UFOs are alien tech. If you don't have a problem with that position, why are you arguing with me at such length? That is all I have ever said in this thread. I really am baffled.
Actually we were talking about both and those comments were directed at scientists in general. I wasn't aware that you, yourself, are a working scientist until now so they couldn't have been directed at you personally. As a working scientist, do you have an idea of what those 2 photos by Paul Trent during the 1950s, extensively analyzed by optical physicist Bruce Maccabee, might be? If you had to make a statement, what do you think they portray? That's just one case off the top of my head.
It would really help me if when you quote and reply to my posts you distinguish between comments directed at me, and comments not directed at me. Because you went straight from my statement to a long discourse on people holding that position ignoring evidence and being crappy scientists. What was I meant to feel that was in reference to?
The photo is of an opaque object in the sky. The size estimates used are probably inaccurate as they assume the photographer is in the same position for both shots when he clearly is not (see change in perspective on the house). Even a small change in postilion could lead to a wildly inaccurate size estimate of the object is far away. It might be that that the object is a distance away and small to medium in size. I do not know what it is.
The response to 'I do not know what it is' does not have to be 'make a wild choice based on your assumptions about 1) black government projects, 2) extra terrestrial life, 3) angels, 4) whatever'. I just don;t know: insufficient evidence to make a reasonable attribution.
Other things I don't know include: do psychic powers exist? Do aliens exist? Is faster than light travel possible? Why did I once see someone at a party that I later found was not there? Will the United States ever have a truly fair and functional House and Congress?
Why should anyone care about grainy photos from the 50's depicting exactly what a 1950's person would conclude an alien spacecraft should look like?
Because it was analyzed by an optical physicist that determined the object was at a great distance from the camera and that there were no suspension lines. The good thing about vintage photographs/cases is that they didn't have the technology to fake images the way they do today and because nobody in their right mind would argue we had the technology to duplicate some of the maneuvers and speeds of some of the crafts depicted.
Again psycheskinner, it still doesn't make sense since you never indicated you were a scientist. That and you didn't have much room to talk after your comments toward sparkster that I pointed out. Here's a better one and then I'll leave you alone. It was faster just to copy and paste the paragraph from my book:
Another series of UFO photographs that no researcher can explain was taken in Trindade, Brazil in January 1958. A Brazilian naval photographer took five photographs of an exceptionally large, Saturn-shaped UFO just off the coast of Brazil. Other eyewitnesses on the boat were part of a geological survey team. Dozens of interviewed witnesses both on the boat and on shore indicated the sighting lasted for almost two minutes as it maneuvered and then hovered off in the distance. The witnesses reported the object approached a nearby island before finally disappearing behind a mountain. It then reappeared once more before moving off at a very high rate of speed toward the sea. Michael Swords of the Department of Natural Sciences at Western Michigan University believes people must take the sighting seriously. Swords gives merit to the report not only because of the unexplained nature of the photographs, but also because it is a multiple eyewitness case by scientists, a professional photographer, and other eyewitnesses from a separate location.
What does optical physics have to do with photography?
Nobody in their right mind comes to the conclusion of visiting aliens from grainy 1950's pictures.
Another photo from the 50's? Are you serious? This is your compelling argument in favor of visiting aliens?
Would it have something to do with it if it was true that you can take pictures of things that were not there? Or if technology had progressed to the point where you could take pictures of movies projected into thin air?
@psycheskinner The militaries of several countries have released previously declassified research documents, showing that many of these countries, after decades of investigating the phenomena, have come to the conclusion that up to 5% of UFO's may be from an "external" origin.
For photos and videos, there's the Ecuador 1995 video - this is not fake, it was officially released by the military of Ecuador (where UFO disclosure is much more open). There was also physical trace evidence plus startling corroborating witness testimony at the Kelly Cahill 1993 incidnet.
The best case I am aware of is Operation Saucer (1977), also known as the Para UFO Attack, which was video recorded, photographed and witnessed by the military of Brazil in 1977. 2,000 pages, 500 photographs and over 16 hours of video film have been declassified relating to the incident, yet this is only a tiny fraction of the information that the Brazilian military have available. They also confirm 35 people were reated for radiation sickness after being hit by beams of light.
Another good incident is the Varginha, Brazil incident 1996 where an object was tracked on radar coming from outer space and into Earth's atmosphere, where it eventually crashed in Brazil. Over 100 people saw aliens, two people died from unknown (i.e. alien) toxic substances and the military officials who actually dealt with the beings came forward to testify.
Make what you will of these incidents.
Not compelling in the least.
I didn't say optical physics had anything to do with photography, just thought his job title was worth including by his name. Wouldn't you do the same if only out of respect? I think he's earned it.
Oh so because a photo is from the 1950s, that means it's automatically bunk?. Glad you could share your unrivaled knowledge with the rest of the group there mr. expert. Since a lot of photographs and videos can be manipulated quite easily these days, older cases eliminate that as a possibility since it was a lot more difficult to do so then. Perhaps we should blame Kodak for not producing better film or cameras back then. That's it exactly. They can't possibly have any validity because they're a little grainy. [insert rolling eyes moticon] Even you can't be that idiotic or presumptuous.
You really might want to work on your reading comprehension Enceph. I never said that either case was my compelling argument in support of the ETH. They were 2 cases that I pulled off the top of my head. (Read, remember, then reread to prevent yourself from making the same mistake again.) I never even said that ANY case was unquestionably established as being of alien origin. How did you miss that considering how many times I repeated it? All I have argued is that the overwhelming minority (still 1,000s) of best cases warrant closer examination. I'm not the expert to study them or to make a determination either way. If you happen to be a scientist like psycheskinner, then that explains your defensive attitude. Typical. But seriously Enceph, you need to pay closer attention to what you're reading.
And it wasn't just the photographs by themselves that are "compelling," but the fact that there were multiple eyewitnesses (professionals at that) to accompany them. I suppose you could accuse them of getting together and lying about what they saw, because if they were telling the truth then how can you explain what is actually in the photographs? That's right, you can't. That's why they're called unidentified. And instead of trying to produce an educated answer, you distract us with a "giggle factor" and laughing emoticons, all based on NOTHING I personally claimed. That's the funny part
I suppose it was expected that you eventually would stoop to this kind of behavior since you have nothing else to contribute.
Yes, they are called "unidentified", they are not called "hard evidence of alien visitations"
If that's all you are gleaning from my posts, it would seem you are not reading them.
I'm not the one that started "this kind of behavior," but thought I would reciprocate as I assumed it was your style. Pot calling the kettle black.
I agree and never said that ANY of it was hard evidence, just that certain ones should be left open as a possibility that they MIGHT BE what they appear to display. Whew...at least you finally got that part. (I was beginning to get a little worried.) And until a skeptic can come up with an equally valid interpretation of what said photo or video might be depicting to the contrary, then they equally have no leg to stand on. Disagree? Until some of them can be "identified" then the jury is still out until we receive more information. You know, pretty much how science works whether some skeptics will admit to it or not.
Besides, my contribution on this site is well documented as an established member with 25 featured hubs, a rare Rising Star accolade, and 5 Editor's Choice hubs. You don't really have much ground to stand on when accusing me of not contributing.
And I have read your short and sweet posts. Very basic, shrewd, often derogatory, and lacking of much substance. Care to come up with a hypothesis to the contrary of what we might be seeing in some of the more modern videos that are established as not being a hoax? Pick any of those in particular that you wish (since you seem stuck on the fact that 1950s sightings are useless) and enlighten us as to what you think they might be. Or I can pick a few specific ones for you. Then you might be accused of contributing.
Considering they don't display visiting aliens, I have to assume that's because you want to believe visiting aliens.
Yes, it is something that we say, "I don't know the explanation and I will not jump to any conclusions."
However, that is not what you're doing.
As if your "Rising Star" accolade has to do with anything? Pretty lame argument, dude.
Aw, it must really ire you not to have someone agree with your irrational conclusions.
Why should I come up with a hypothesis when there is no evidence in which to formulate one? Sorry dude, that's not how science works.
It has nothing to do with what I "want" to believe. I'm extremely careful with my convictions. It isn't even a matter of "belief," but looking at the available evidence and leaving the matter open. After all, on the surface they do appear to be of unearthly origin. As much as you might want to avoid that possible interpretation, some the of the characteristics, maneuvers, and reports make some cases appear there is some kind of "super science" behind them. That's still not "jumping to conclusions" and not claiming that's what they are as many UFO buffs out there do, but leaving it open as a potential possibility.
Have you not heard of the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH)? It isn't something I made up, but something postulated by researchers, specifically in the Condon Report. Heck, even Carl Sagan admitted that the ETH was possible, however unlikely. You can be the staunchest skeptic and still admit that it is a possibility. Not doing so is against the very principles science is built on...ignorance. So perhaps you need to get with the program when it comes to how science works, Enceph. I'm fully aware of how it works and have written about it extensively in my book. I promise to send you a link when my publisher puts it in print sometime in August. You might actually learn something...lol!
I posted my accolades to show that I have a proven record of contributing on this site. You, on the other hand, have yet to post a single hub.
How can I be coming up with irrational conclusions when I haven't made any regarding the eth? Quit being so dense and pay attention to what I post. Nowhere have I made ANY conclusions. (You're starting to get away from that again and drawing at straws based on phantom statements. I actually held out hope for you until your last post...tsk tsk tsk.)
Let me ask you this: are you a religious person or atheist? If you don't answer then I'll certainly understand why you didn't.
Sorry, but they don't appear to be of unearthly origin, that would be jumping to conclusions. The appearance of something does not make it true.
The appearance of something does not make it true, and yes, that would be jumping to conclusions.
What we admit as possibilities do not necessarily translate into probabilities of the same magnitude. Something can be possible, but highly improbable.
I can't wait.
Does the posting of hubs provide evidence and support for alien visitations? Film at eleven.
There are MANY videos that appear unearthly. Many. Otherwise they wouldn't be unexplained. That kind of goes hand in hand. And leaving the ETH (remember, not theory) open as a possibility is not jumping to any conclusions. Making the statement that said video IS of alien origin, on the other hand, would certainly be. Again, until we have more information, it remains a valid possibility. Being infants in the realm of science (not to mention residents of a relatively young star system), we really have no right assuming we know much of anything about the Universe, what kind of life might be out there, or what kind of technology they might have if they are. Maybe in another 100,000 years we might have the right to make such assumptions of probable or improbable. Refer to the double slit experiment or quantum non-locality if you don't think I have a point.
The ETH does not have to be a possibility as opposed to a probability for it to still be a valid hypothesis. It's only considered improbable based on an overwhelming amount of ignorance when it comes to what we are actually witnessing. Sure, people can say it's impossible or improbable all they want, but if incontrovertible evidence ever presents itself in the near future then those same individuals are going to be the ones paying the price. It would hurt people's outlook for science if they wound up being flat wrong about something that garners a lot of international attention. For example, UFO buffs would have a hey day and science in general would garner a lot more criticism than they already do from the religious community.
No it provides evidence and support for contributing since I was accused of not doing so.
So I take it you're a Christian?
Here is some food for thought that I quoted in my book. Don't shoot the messenger.
“I propose that true skepticism is called for today: neither the gullible acceptance of true belief nor the closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the skeptic. One should be skeptical of both the believers and the scoffers. The negative claims of pseudo-skeptics who offer facile explanations must themselves be subject to criticism. If a competent witness reports having seen something tens of degrees of arc in size (as happens) and the scoffer -- who of course was not there -- offers Venus or a high altitude weather balloon as an explanation, the requirement of extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim falls on the proffered negative claim as well. That kind of approach is also pseudo-science. Moreover just being a scientist confers neither necessary expertise nor sufficient knowledge. (I wish it did, sigh.) Any scientist who has not read a few serious books and articles presenting actual UFO evidence should out of intellectual honesty refrain from making scientific pronouncements. To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless is another. That is not science.”—Bernard Haisch, astrophysicist, UFOSkeptic.org
That is your personal opinion not based on evidence.
No, it doesn't, unexplained phenomena do not automatically equate to unearthly origins.
That is correct, it is not a theory or a hypothesis, by definition.
Yes, just as valid as many other possibilities that have no evidence, so what?
I see no correlation behind your beliefs in alien visitations and the double slit experiment, none.
What price? If incontrovertible evidence ever presented itself, then we would have incontrovertible evidence. That's all she wrote.
So what, we are not children, we can handle it.
Not my personal opinion. Validated evidence is different than general evidence being gathered to validate or dismiss either way. It is indeed a form of evidence and these are ALL valid possibilities: secret military, natural phenomenon, hoax, alien. Nothing automatic, just the obvious interpretations based on common sense and what we are looking at.
By definition, the ETH is indeed a hypothesis based on the plethora of evidence. (Again, not validated, but pieces to a puzzle.) Does the evidence substantiate they are of alien origin? No. But they certainly do not dismiss it either.
Double slit and non-locality were examples to show just how much we really know about the Universe. We don't know enough about the Universe to assume it is not possible there is other intelligent life out there or that they have the ability to make it here. We just don't know.
Many biologists, cosmologists, and astronomers (especially SETI) have gone on record stating that interstellar mobility is impossible or that life is too rare for it to be elsewhere. Don't think for a minute that their credibility would remain intact should evidence ever present itself. UFO fanatics would come out of the woodwork to say "I told you so" and it would undermine everything we think we know about science. And it would be their own fault for putting themselves out there. You're living in a dream world if you think it would be ok, especially considering how the media operates these days. Was Ludwig Boltzmann a child because he committed suicide after intense ridicule for endorsing atomic power? Don't kid yourself that it wouldn't greatly impact society's outlook for science in general and that it would be "all she wrote." Many kooks would go on a mission to ensure it wasn't all she wrote and there would certainly be a level of embarrassment.
Obvious interpretations? Aliens?
If a hypothesis, where are the tests and predictions?
They don't dismiss flying squirrels, either.
We just don't know a lot of things, so what?:
LOL. No, that would not undermine everything we know about science, that's just silly.
Why is it eye-witness testimony can put a person away for life in a court of law, but is pooh-pooh to some skeptics when it comes to the UFO and alien question?
Bill Sego is one of the more erudite and intelligent persons I've seen in over three years of reading and commenting on threads of this type.
Personally I've had a CE2K. Within 300 feet in fact. It was reported by a church group many miles away from me and reported on the big city news. It was also picked up on radar at the airport. But at the risk of being thought lacking cred, I'll just relate what this gentleman told me just a month or so ago:
This man was a highly decorated combat leader in Vietnam; he was also a helicopter pilot and later a large plane pilot for the 101st airborne division. He has never told the following publically: Once while piloting a plane load of new 101st recruits, he and the co-pilot spotted a UFO pacing them off to the left. Before long the strangely incandescent and oval-shaped object changed direction and began hovering on top of the transport plane. It then pervaded the cock-pit with a bright as day colored light, which appeared to be scanning instruments to this veteran pilot. By this time the new recruits had seen the UFO and were hollering in terror as they thought a collision was eminent. The pilot then dropped the plane to near tree-top height as the mystery object followed it down some before shooting off straight ahead at incredible speed. And in conclusion, the co-pilot was so upset by the encounter he never flew again, nor was the incident reported.
Sorry, are you actually asking the difference between lying in a court of law and lying about alien visitations? Evey heard of perjury?
That's nice, I'm very happy for the both of you. Unfortunately, Bill jumps to conclusions.
Nice story. So what?
How can one get perjury-minded with a factual statement and perfectly good question. Ok, here's a direct question: Psychologically speaking, is there an acknowledged condition where a person refuses to consider or believe anything anyone says unless it agrees with their own narrow-minded thought patterns?
When I call a business or company, I much prefer talking to a real person than a telephone android. So Bill's human with a distinct personality, some of us like it that way, and I don't see anything in his comments as jumping to conclusions....sorry.
Nice story. So what? You can disparage me all you want, but please don't do so to this brave American who was vetted by the armed services and whose background was vetted to me by professionals.
Can I conclude you've now stopped making an argument for alien visitations?
Oh my. What did I write that would lead you to think believe I was arguing for off planet visitors? For the sake of it, though, let's say the pilot's story is 100% accurate. What would you make of the encounter?
The error is on the part of the courts, as many a DNA test has proven. Eye witness account would support the truth of all supernatural beings from all religions, many kinds of alien, El Dorado, and ninja trolls.
Clearly eye witness accounts generally require corroboration or supporting evidence before being taken as strong evidence. Otherwise they are part of a body or circumstantial evidence that must be read as a whole.
Good points, psycheskinner. Especially, "Clearly eye witness accounts generally require corroboration or supporting evidence before being taken as strong evidence."
Thanks Alastar. I try as much as possible to remain neutral with regard to the phenomenon, but find myself having a difficult time getting the staunchest of skeptics to at least admit to the possibility. (I do the opposite to UFO buffs, especially when they endorse a video that is obviously a hoax or of natural phenomenon.) Too many people have a hard time finding any happy medium or a "live and let live" approach to life so some are just hopeless. (It's one of the biggest problems with society in general.) They like to argue in circles and flat out refuse to admit as much, even when presented with some cases they themselves are unable to provide any alternative hypothesis to the contrary. I often get them stuck in a catch 22 using simple logic and common sense, but some are just inherently argumentative while ignoring any key points I bring up. Take Enceph, for example. He even goes so far as to accuse me of jumping to conclusions when, as you can see from all my previous posts, have not done so once. He has a hard time getting through his head that leaving all of these possibilities open has nothing to do with jumping to any conclusions: top secret military, natural phenomenon, hoax, or alien tech. In essence, he's the one jumping to conclusions about me when I have never stated that I believe UFOs are alien spacecraft. What's ironic is that Enceph hasn't denied believing in God. While there's nothing wrong with believing as you wish, he's being very hypocritical by adhering to a personified deity that will NEVER have the chance of becoming verified. This is why he refrains from admitting as much and he knows it.
I write about this (and much more) extensively in my book and will be sure to let you know when it's out in August. My hubs include most portions of it, but I have yet to update them with the edited final draft. (Was a little anxious to get my hubs started.) Will let you know when I update them, but am still putting the finishing touches on the manuscript and am currently swamped in the editing process.
I haven't seen anyone here not admit to the possibility of alien visitations, but considering the vast amount of reports coupled with the lack of any hard evidence, the statistical possibility has shrunk infinitesimally small.
Falsely blaming society for ones hopeless outlook on life doesn't support your argument.
To the contrary of what? Aliens?
Why should anyone want to find an alternative explanation to aliens when there is no evidence for aliens?
If something doesn't have an explanation, we don't jump to the conclusion of aliens and then complain when others can't find an alternative to aliens.
Your "key points" are not convincing even if they appear that way to you.
And yet, we can find plenty of material in your posts with terms such as "unearthly", is that not the same as aliens?
No, I do understand there are all kinds of possibilities, however alien visitations is so far down the list of possibilities, it is yet to be even seen.
Zeus doesn't appreciate being talked about in that way, he can toss a mean lightning bolt.
Yes, you keep talking about your book, almost as if the only reason you're here is to promote it.
Well said, Bill. And thank you, Sir. I'll be one buying and reading your book with pleasure come August.
And on each side of "unearthly" are words like "appear," "suggest," "look like," "purported," and the like. Pretty much the same context as what you see below. Again, that has nothing to do with my own personal beliefs.
The prevailing sentiment and what these craft look like are unearthly. Period. There's no escaping what some of them look like on the surface. The speed, structure, and maneuvers of them are well beyond known capabilities. Anyone with two eyes and common sense can see that. So since those people that post these videos are convinced they are unearthly (and, on the surface, many of them appear to be), then the only alternative is to come up with an alternate hypothesis. Why not quell the UFO fire since that is what they are claimed to be instead of just ignoring it? That's the easy way out...pretty much a cop-out...and is not how science is supposed to work.
Why are Christians that are also skeptics/scientists so afraid to admit to their convictions? Next you'll be pulling out the faith card. I promise not to hold it against you...much.
It's certainly the biggest reason I'm on Hubpages. You're darn straight.
Which is the same thing as saying they're alien craft.
No, people who jump to conclusions allegedly see those things and assume it is an alien craft.
No one cares those people are convinced of alien crafts so there is no reason to have to come up with an alternative explanation.
Because no one cares about the loons who believe in such things. Their so-called "fire" barely generates a spark.
Science also does not care about the loons, either. Science is too busy doing science.
Sorry, no idea what you're talking about, another jumped conclusion on your part?
Good for you.
No it's not. Big difference between claiming they are of alien origin and saying it's only ONE possibility. I listed others, which means there is no definite claim. They have to be one of them on that list unless you have another alternative to offer. (Otherwise, you're just trolling.) If a scientist criticizes another hypothesis or theory, they usually tend to back up that claim with one of their own to the contrary. You still have yet to provide an alternative explanation (in general) as to what people are seeing in some of these videos. If not one of the 4 I listed then what other possibilities have I missed? Nobody forced you on here, so contribute with something of substance rather than just claiming UFO buffs are kooks.
Yes the fanatics jump to conclusions. The ones actually trying to get to some kind of truth or determination either way are not jumping to any conclusions. They are doing the actual research.
Actually a lot of people care and the number continues to rise. Just check the latest Gallup or other poll numbers to confirm. A lot of people are interested in the topic so you're being highly presumptuous. There has to be a reason the History Channel, H2, Discovery, yes even the Science channel (to name a few) consistently broadcast them. It's called ratings based on general interest.
You're the pessimist that looks into the box expecting the cat to be dead. I take that back. You're the one that refuses to look in the box to determine the collapsed wave function either way, all the while insisting the cat is already dead...lol!
Yes you do. I tried to bait you with confirmation that you are a Christian.
I think I have you pegged Enceph. You come across as a troll. (Prove me wrong by coming up with an alternative to their claims...otherwise you're just on here trolling.) You likely peruse UFO sights and other blogs to criticize people that believe in the phenomenon. It's apparent you have had a lot of practice doing this. Had I saw any hubs that you had already published then I may not have drawn that conclusion. I find it ironic that you have wasted time discussing the topic with me at length when it could have been used to at least get yourself established with your first hub. How about contributing to society...even if people don't agree with you?
There could be thousands of alternative explanations that aren't on any list. You are jumping to conclusions again.
I'm sure that you probably do view others who disagree with your nonsense as trolling. Got any more non-starters?
No, they often don't offer other alternatives. They simply attempt to refute the assertions. (Btw, you are not offering hypotheses or theories)
I don't have to do any such thing, no one does.
I have been contributing, but you don't seem to like what I contribute.
No, they aren't, they are merely jumping to conclusions based on false premises, they do more harm than any good.
Yes, while they cater to the lowest common denominators of society to get those ratings, the people who swallow anything because they are ridiculously ignorant and gullible.
Sorry, how is that relevant to anything?
Then, you proceeded to put words in my mouth.
Yes, I'm sure you probably call everyone who doesn't agree with your nonsense a troll. That just shows the weakness of your arguments.
Sorry, but not offering an alternative explanation does not equate to trolling. But, I can see that is the last bastion of a ....
Showing how ridiculous and empty your claims about alien visitations was not wasting my time.
How about contributing something that isn't nonsense?
Notice how you are now no longer trying to support your argument in any way, but are instead attempting to discredit me, calling me a troll, telling me I'm wasting my time, I should contribute to society, blah, blah blah... all tactics of the alien visitation woo woo.
OK, Enceph, I'll will come clean and cut to the chase. Yes, I believe a small number of UFOs are non-terrestrial with some of those from different spacetime continuums as well. Seeing is believing. Make of it what thou wilt in a subjective way for that's the only way you can with me..
I'm not so sure it is a prank - it was originally planned for April fools day but changed to the 5th because they thought doing it on the 1st was too obvious a prank. I'm sure all UFO conspirators will agree with me, if aliens, who are among us, YOU KNOW IT, wanted to stage an invasion what better way to disquise it than as a prank on April fools day! I'm hitting the shelter on the 1st! Survivors, let me know when it is safe to come out.
Disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 begins to demand supernatural explanations - the Washington Post is now reporting that smartphones of some passengers who boarded the flight are still active and connected to the 'net even though the plane they were on has vanished.
As WashPost reports:
One of the most eerie rumors came after a few relatives said they were able to call the cellphones of their loved ones or find them on a Chinese instant messenger service called QQ that indicated that their phones were still somehow online.
A migrant worker in the room said that several other workers from his company were on the plane, including his brother-in-law. Among them, the QQ accounts of three still showed that they were online, he said Sunday afternoon.
Adding to the mystery, other relatives in the room said that when they dialed some passengers' numbers, they seemed to get ringing tones on the other side even though the calls were not picked up.
Get ready, teleportation portals of some kind exist in the skies through which the aliens will be coming in April and through which this plane inadvertently flew and was teleported somewhere else. Yet, astonishingly, electromagnetic signals can still make it through the portal, and the two sides of the portal remain in contact across the radio spectrum. (This explanation sounds like pure science fiction and also seems extremely unlikely, yet we must at least acknowledge that modern physics has already demonstrated the instantaneous teleportation of information across apparently infinite space due to the "non-locality" of entangled electrons as described in quantum theory.)
There could be more of these mysterious plane disappearances (which has been recorded to have occurred at other times in history) as we aproach April 5th. They are out there and they are coming while we sit around believing it will be a hoax.
The phones are not active, they ring on the receiver's end while searching for a signal. Their voicemail is not actually on the phone and will still function. There is no evidence I have seen of phone to network connectivity.
It is interesting how basic lack of understanding of something as simple as voice mail (which you correctly note is not connected to the phone itself) can lead people to the most preposterous of conclusions.
This hub reminds me of the infamous Fox Sisters and their disgraceful, and at some level deeply exploitive, claims of making connections with the dead; with the so-called "Spirit World".
However, if you put it on a serious news show like 48 hours, attach some eerie music... it becomes fact. No disputing it once they've added the music.
And God forbid a journalist should check the facts before perpetuating wild claims that give false hope to greiving relatives. That might mean they don't get to be the one breaking the "story".
The oldest Fox sister(the two experiencers' manager at one time) at the time of the "admission" was a severe alcoholic and broke when the newspaper in the city of the admission paid her a hefty sum to say it was all a hoax. She later retracted. It's hard to see how the two sisters could have fooled even scientific types for decades by simply cracking their knuckles. Definitely more to the Fox sisters' story than meets the eye.
one sister did demonstration after explaining the mechanism that recreated the "real" demonstration. If a confession and demonstration is not evidence of a hoax, I don't know what is.
Your of course correct in that. What it proved was at least one sister could throw toe-cracking sounds. If the many books I've read are right, there were far more baffling activities than just thrown sounds surrounding the sisters in their demonstrations.
Wow, I'm so glad I started this thread, it's turned out to be quite entertaining!
I had an online stalker type dude once that said he was abducted by aliens when he was 10. He said they pulled him up into the ship, did experiments on him then let him go.
Agree. Laughter is the best medicine.
Laughter is fine medicine. For what it's worth, though, this exchange from CNN's website doesn't qualify: A Malaysian politico tweeted " new Bermuda triangle detected in Vietnam waters, well equipped sophisticated devices are of no use!" Piers Morgan replied " Really? Then your as thick as you look. I was praying you were one of the people on the plane." What a compassionate and tactful man Piers is.
Well all I can comment on this announcement is that we have been warned. If this is going to happen in the USA and also in South Africa then I'm glad to have known about this hoax. Nothing surprises me anymore, all I do know is that most of the UFO's are man made!
I am not sure I am understanding your intent with this forum.
Are you claiming (a) that UFOs as in alien ships from other planets captained by aliens are real and (b) that the government---some government, any government is perpetrating some sort of UFO invasion hoax in order to "discredit" those who insist that alien visitations are real?
My intent is just to let you know that the hoax is happening. As far as I am aware it's not being perpetrated by governments but members of the general public who are avid fans of remote controlled multi-rotor drones. It has been suggested that the hoax is being used to cover a real event but I didn't make this suggestion... and yes, personally I believe between 1% to 5% of UFO's to be of extraterrestrial origin but that's a different matter and it's up to you what you choose to believe.
I am still interested in what cases, with what traits, you considered to be probably alien in nature.
I have pointed out a few cases but I don't know why you're making a big deal over whether they exist or not, when that's not really what this thread is about. According to the militaries of several countries they have evidence that some (notice I said "some") UFO's are extraterrestrial - and there is a worldwide disclosure movement going on right now with regards to this issue, which I have been following for the past 6 years.
The problem is that we have nothing officially on record as evidence as alien life, therefore when something "unexplained" or "anomalous" happens there is no evidence of alien life to compare it with, therefore we are unable to come to the conclusion that it's alien, even though it may (or may not) be. What amazes me is how militaries, governments, etc claim this is real - if the skeptics believe they are wrong or lying then the skeptics are accusing them of lying about it which in itself is another conspiracy theory. What I know is that after what I have seen with my own eyes, I would rather believe the official declassified documents and the information in them, which has been analyzed by top government scientists and researchers, than I would believe the claims or theories of a random skeptic who I've never met and am not familiar with. So, there is no ROBUST evidence that we know of but like I mentioned, these declassified documents are just a fraction of what's there - why are the rest of them being kept secret? What else do they know?
Exactly, and that speaks volumes in regards to every other case out there that also has no evidence.
That makes no sense, if something alien were here on Earth, it wouldn't be very difficult to conclude it was in fact alien.
Of course, you would, that is, if indeed real scientists and researchers actually were saying such things, but they aren't.
Why was blood taken from the Para UFO attack victims?
If the event was officially recorded by the Brazilian military and lasted for nine months wouldn't we have found its origin by now if wasn't "alien" (as in foreign to Earth)?
What kind of technology exists capable of doing so?
What "unknown" substances killed the two people during the Varginha incident?
Are these substances still unknown today? Are they native to Earth?
How did Roswell metal fragments found by Frank Kimbler show they were "either not from Earth or the lab made an analytical error"?
How is it Harvard University have confirmed the existence of 35 intelliget signals from space which have been ignored because they were not repeated?
How is it that UFO's are not only tracked on radar in Earth's atmosphere but also coming into Earth's atmosphere from outer space?
These are the types of questions I find asking myself when researching this phenomena.
The ETH is, in my opinion, the most logical and the most plausible (at the moment). If anyone can offer conventional explanations I would be willing to consider them.
I have already named numerous government scientists, engineers, researchers etc in many of my hubs (and bubbles) on this topic - yes, they do exist. You can choose to ignore that fact if you want but that doesn't mean its not real.
I'm quite sure those people exist, that's part of the problem.
No real scientist would ever go on record stating something was in fact of alien origins. And, they don't.
That is pretty much how believers think, they will jump to the conclusion they really want to believe is true because no one can offer them an explanation, most likely because an explanation is not readily available.
That is not science, that is called "woo-woo"
Statistically, 60% of the world disagree with you - are you calling the majority of the people on the planet "woo woo" because you disagree with them? It seems to me there is only one person being derogatory on this entire thread.
And, what exactly do 60% of the world disagree with me, not ignoring the fact you just offered the Appeal to Popularity fallacy as your argument?
Aside from your obvious use of previously mentioned fallacy, I was not referring to the majority of people on the planet, or else I would have actually written that here. The point of my responses are solely on the words you write here, please try to remember that moving forward.
You make many claims here.
What are the specific sources of these contentions? In other words, and with all due respect, where did you find and read this stuff?
Most, if not all, of this information has come from declassified military documents from various countries along with ongoing research (which has never really stopped). The Para UFO attack for example - the documents were kept secret for 23 years and what is available is only a fraction of what they have.(which they openly acknowledge).
Actually I was a complete skeptic when I first starting researching UFO's, so that argument is invalid.
Whether you were a complete skeptic, an incomplete skeptic or something in between does not preclude the fact your decision making process is flawed and most certainly appears biased, as in, bias confirmation.
Confirmation bias? so, you're saying the information available has led me to that conclusion because it makes certain assumptions that have led me to that belief? Nope, "confirmation bias" is a subject I was already very familiar with before I started looking into this. You are making the assumption that you are right and I am wrong when there is no way to prove or disprove it - that is the true meaning of bias. You can tell me I'm wrong, but you can't tell that to the people inside government who are working on this.
No, I'm making the observation that you're jumping to conclusions based on false premises. Confirmation bias is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses, as you do with alien visitations.
I don't need to tell them, others most likely have already told them. Their arguments are not compelling in the least, they have no evidence.
It's just a belief system.
Technically, everything is just a belief system, just as is your skepticism. Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. You stick to your belief system, I'll stick to mine - which are both based on experience by the way. You can't use a psychological basis to prove or even make a compelling case that I am wrong because psychology, perception, mind, personality, delusions, hallucinations, etc all come under my primary specialist subject (and education). It's getting quite pathetic now, why don't you just stop being so childish and go pick your silly little arguments with someone as childish as yourself.
And your definition of confirmation bias is wrong too, so I suggest you do some research on that too, perhaps along with some research on the wisdom of crowds. The more you spout off a load of babble the more of an idiot you're making yourself look - and no, that wasn't an insult - you really are making yourself look like an idiot.
Haha talk about trying to twist the situation. You wanted to prove a point, not me. I couldn't care less what you believe, that's your choice and makes no difference whatsoever to me.... but still you insisted on wasting your time... then again, people do get offensive instead of defensive when they experience cognitive dissnonance. This debate has nothing to do with the forum topic. I made clear my opinions (and beliefs) - clearly you do not respect the beliefs of others and have resorted to making attacks when presented with information which conflicts with your own preconceived notion of reality and therefore I consider this conversation over. Feel free to reply if you want (but I won't read it).
... and you never managed to propose as much as one rational explanation for the events put forth. Ah, well...
Bill, I am a sceptic about anything Bruce Maccabee has to say as his work has been proven to be unreliable on a number of occassions. There are many alternate theories of the Trent case which are far more likely than aliens, but it is obvious that if somebody can set up a good hoax and is sufficiently clever to hide the evidence it will remain "unidentified" and it is my opinion that the Trent cases are an hoax.
I am not familiar with all of the cases mentioned above but I believe the onus of proof is on those seeking to say it is aliens not on those believing the images have a terrestrial origin.
As alien life is almost a certainty I do believe their is intelligent life out there but I am very sceptical about whether it has visited us and even if it has the liklihood is they could remain hidden if they wanted to.
So the upshot of this is we all agree no known UFO case is a "compelling evidence" of alien visitation. And yet somehow this still has the tone of an argument?
To Alastar Packer:
You ask THE question we all should be asking: "Psychologically speaking, is there an acknowledged condition where a person refuses to consider or believe anything anyone says unless it agrees with their own narrow-minded thought patterns?"
Anyone want to venture a guess?
Sure it can go either way, but this is a direct question, not an open-ended one...no guessing please:)
we don't need to guess - first there is Cerebral Narcissism, secondly there is Cognitive Dissonance.
Some people are clearing making the decision to ignore what's right in front of them, not even bother to acknowledge it and then saying other peoples way of thinking is flawed - if that isn't either cognitive dissonance or cerebral narcissism then I don't know what is.
* nice of them to get me banned from my very own thread for 24 hours, simply because of their (cerebral) narcissistic attitude. HP have pushed me too far this time, I will not be writing for them again in the future.
You got banned from your own thread??? For what? I've been reading all of the comments posted here and I cannot imagine you being banned.
I really do wonder why some people are banned and others are allowed to post racist, bigoted, homophobic, anti-government, conspiracy theory-driven hate speech, vicious personal comments, overt and clear bullying, and even threatening comments (my list could go on and on) with impunity.
I think the reason is easy to infer from the insults right in that post. The post complaining about moderation probably does not meet the forum rules itself.
Thanks for those explanations, sparkster. Good to see you back on.
The answer is yes, but it may not be just a psychological condition related to failure to engage with reality.
It appears also to be a cognitive condition related to extreme narcissism coupled with an incapacity to process even a modicum of critical thought resulting from or related to a fundamental lack of acquisition of factual information and data.
If you don't disagree with what people are saying, why do you keeping acting like this is an argument?
I am trying to follow this discussion, but I am not understanding what it is about.
The bottom-line is this: There are some people who believe that so-called UFOs are aliens from outer space who are visiting Earth OR those who think that so-called UFOs are just unidentified or misidentified terrestrial air craft or other natural phenomena entirely unrelated to aliens or alien craft.
What is being debated here is belief vs. reality and nothing more.
This is strange because it is not in the Christian teachings. A man will be fooled if he let himself to be fooled.
God is the ultimate purpose about this life and nothing more. Blessings to those who felt God and pray for those who have not felt Him.
by PhoenixV 11 years ago
What Is The Most Compelling Evidence Or Case For The Existence Of UFO's?If one were to make the biggest or most compelling case for the existence of UFO's what would it be? When considering or defining UFO's it would be craft from some other intelligent life in the universe that is being observed...
by Don W 6 years ago
I'm struggling to keep up with all this. Is Trump really planning to attack North Korea if they do another nuclear test? Is it seriously being considered as a possibility? Or is it just sabre rattling? And is this type of brinksmanship the best approach to foreign policy?
by aka-dj 14 years ago
There is much debate about Evolution theory, and Creationism in the forums. Lets take it to the MOST BASIC level, "abiogenesis".Have a look at this (simplified) version of a single cell structure/biology, and tell me (everyone) HOW, this much complexity, can arise by, and of itself,...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|