the disclosure project - ufos exist, no really!

[ThrowAway]

^^Talking about Albert, as an aside, have you read this book http://www.amazon.co.uk/mc2-Biography-W ... 0330391658 ? I found it really neat, filling in some historical gaps and people.

I have read a couple of books about einstein but I dont think i read that one in particular, I am going to the library tomorrow and Im going to look for it. I need something interesting to read.

[Homebelly]

Don't be too quick to pigeon hole people based on their reply's in a thread like this. It's a fairly limiting medium (time wise) and lacks other communication subtleties. Also, not everyone leaves everything on the table in terms of their positions, or willingness to take on board newly presented information or perspectives. The process of being introduced to differences of opinion, mulling them over, sifting through the words and assumptions also take differing amounts of time depending on previous experience and practice. I for one am happy to have been a part of this thread as I have learned some new concepts that I have to find room for, regardless of how daft the initially sound.

I agree. +1

When the guy before einstein published his theory of atoms he was ostracized and ridiculed to the point of hanging him self. Two to three years later einstein enjoyed rock star status because he proved it, among other things.

I would agree with these statements 100% if it where limited to all of the Pseudosciences. However, i have to call bullshit once evolution and other well established disciplines such as Newtonian and Einstein physics are dragged into the fray and treated in the same way while ignoring all of the very sound and thorough research and verification that goes along with those aspects of science. I kind of loose faith in the people i share this board with and start to question their intellect once we start up on Atlantis, lost civilizations, alien intervention and undiscovered planets while choosing to accept only the flimsiest of empirical evidence to back these ideas up and then go on to treat them as any thing more than just entertaining speculation.
Its one thing to have an open mind and to be prepared to accept new ideas, but then that becomes an entirely different kettle of fish when you leave all reason and logic behind and take a completely blind leap of faith into a whole new world of misguided naivety where you are prepared to put aside all of the facts and start accepting alternative ideas as facts.
Ultimately though i don't really give a shit because it is as this point that Darwinism takes over and so while those of you that buy into the hidden knowledge and lost civilization rhetoric are spending time indulging in your pseudo intellectual debates waiting for Planet X to turn up, the rest of us will just get on with getting on and carry on living in the real world. In fact, So silly is this thread that at this point i'm surprised the Moorish Orthodox Church of America/Moorish Science Temple hasn't turned up.

[ThrowAway]

What flimsy science have I referred to(besides joao's)? Everything science related Ive talked about is mainstream belief in the scientific community. Earth being seeded by alien bacteria is a prominent theory. Are you thinking Im comparing joao to einstein I wasnt, but if he turns out to be correct, hell be bigger than einstein. Am I off base here?

[gjm]

Don't be too quick to pigeon hole people based on their reply's in a thread like this. It's a fairly limiting medium (time wise) and lacks other communication subtleties. Also, not everyone leaves everything on the table in terms of their positions, or willingness to take on board newly presented information or perspectives. The process of being introduced to differences of opinion, mulling them over, sifting through the words and assumptions also take differing amounts of time depending on previous experience and practice. I for one am happy to have been a part of this thread as I have learned some new concepts that I have to find room for, regardless of how daft the initially sound.

I agree. +1

When the guy before einstein published his theory of atoms he was ostracized and ridiculed to the point of hanging him self. Two to three years later einstein enjoyed rock star status because he proved it, among other things.

I would agree with these statements 100% if it where limited to all of the Pseudosciences. However, i have to call bullshit once evolution and other well established disciplines such as Newtonian and Einstein physics are dragged into the fray and treated in the same way while ignoring all of the very sound and thorough research and verification that goes along with those aspects of science. I kind of loose faith in the people i share this board with and start to question their intellect once we start up on Atlantis, lost civilizations, alien intervention and undiscovered planets while choosing to accept only the flimsiest of empirical evidence to back these ideas up and then go on to treat them as any thing more than just entertaining speculation.
Its one thing to have an open mind and to be prepared to accept new ideas, but then that becomes an entirely different kettle of fish when you leave all reason and logic behind and take a completely blind leap of faith into a whole new world of misguided naivety where you are prepared to put aside all of the facts and start accepting alternative ideas as facts.
Ultimately though i don't really give a shit because it is as this point that Darwinism takes over and so while those of you that buy into the hidden knowledge and lost civilization rhetoric are spending time indulging in your pseudo intellectual debates waiting for Planet X to turn up, the rest of us will just get on with getting on and carry on living in the real world. In fact, So silly is this thread that at this point i'm surprised the Moorish Orthodox Church of America/Moorish Science Temple hasn't turned up.

Puzzled. All I said was that not everyone spills 100% of their guts, nor is it wise to assume someone knows everything, when they wax it up here. Its also equally wise not to assume that you have accurately analyzed someone intellect simply by the way they express themselves here. I also suggested that it can take a little bit of time to filter through it all, and in the process you can learn something. Pretty simple really.

Oh. And Pluto was once a planet.

[Homebelly]

What flimsy science have I referred to(besides joao's)? Everything science related Ive talked about is mainstream belief in the scientific community. Earth being seeded by alien bacteria is a prominent theory. Are you thinking Im comparing joao to einstein I wasnt, but if he turns out to be correct, hell be bigger than einstein. Am I off base here?

To me your post seemed to be suggesting we should give the same kind of credibility to those that are putting forward unorthodox ideas now as we should have been when this person that preceded Einstein was putting forward his idea and theory as in hind sight this persons original idea was sound. The trouble with this statement is i have no idea who this person you are eluding to is and so it seems to me that this person may well be another example of some one holding up another kind of irrelevant jaw bone postulating over the nonexistence of an unimportant "Missing link".... I apologize if i am wrong in my assumption and i am also wide open to being introduced to this person you have mentioned as i thought i had read about most of those that came before and who's work had paved the way before Einstein.
Einsteins theories, as they are, are sound scientific theories based on accumulated fact and as such can be proven correct, They can also be proven incorrect by altering the facts that back them up, this is also an important aspect of science as this method then proves the facts that back up the theory are also correct and so strengthens the theory so that others can continue on from that point and expand on it. In the example of Physics this is how people like Hawkins have been able to explore the world of quantum physics, it is also why anthropologists and geneticists no longer need to rely solely on archeologists to provide them with fossil evidence..

[Homebelly]

Puzzled. All I said was that not everyone spills 100% of their guts, nor is it wise to assume someone knows everything, when they wax it up here. Its also equally wise not to assume that you have accurately analyzed someone intellect simply by the way they express themselves here. I also suggested that it can take a little bit of time to filter through it all, and in the process you can learn something. Pretty simple really.

Oh. And Pluto was once a planet.

Like i said..
I'm quite prepared to agree..
But i find it hard to do so when some one like your self puts forward the idea that evolution, like religion and space aliens, requires a leap of faith.
I would agree with this 100% if you had left the evolution aspect out, but i'm afraid you lost some credibility, at least with me.. when you didn't, as there is absolutely no aspect of faith involved in evolution.. it is a sound and well documented scientific theory that is backed up by hard facts.
All the rest of it i'm quite prepared to play with and speculate over.. its a whole world of fun.. MK-Ultra,,Area 51.. Denver International Airport.. Planet X.. Mayan Calendars.. Brahman creation and reality theology.. all of it.. bring it on.. I've read probably as much about this stuff and probably more than most on these things.. the problem with them all though is that you do need to make huge leaps of faith and none of them are based on any thing but dodgy unverifiable and inconclusive empirical evidence.

[gjm]

Puzzled. All I said was that not everyone spills 100% of their guts, nor is it wise to assume someone knows everything, when they wax it up here. Its also equally wise not to assume that you have accurately analyzed someone intellect simply by the way they express themselves here. I also suggested that it can take a little bit of time to filter through it all, and in the process you can learn something. Pretty simple really.

Oh. And Pluto was once a planet.

Like i said..
I'm quite prepared to agree..
But i find it hard to do so when some one like your self puts forward the idea that evolution, like religion and space aliens, requires a leap of faith.
I would agree with this 100% if you had left the evolution aspect out, but i'm afraid you lost some credibility, at least with me.. when you didn't, as there is absolutely no aspect of faith involved in evolution.. it is a sound and well documented scientific theory that is backed up by hard facts.
All the rest of it i'm quite prepared to play with and speculate over.. its a whole world of fun.. MK-Ultra,,Area 51.. Denver International Airport.. Planet X.. Mayan Calendars.. Brahman creation and reality theology.. all of it.. bring it on.. I've read probably as much about this stuff and probably more than most on these things.. the problem with them all though is that you do need to make huge leaps of faith and none of them are based on any thing but dodgy unverifiable and inconclusive empirical evidence.

My apologies. Again, my original involvement in this thread was to highlight a thought process (often called faith-a generic word) that is similar with these three topics. The similarity is that as each of these subjects is presented/developed/ researched etc, there are gaps that require "post rationalization", jumps in thought, or assumptions that are feed to the world as fact. Specifically, even with the theory of evolution, things change from time to time as new evidence is discovered. The youtube Tone Deft cited earlier in the thread is the perfect example of the assumptions (leaps of thought) that were held to be true until a recent discovery changed the 'Theory' somewhat. For the record, I have no problem with the Theory of Evolution. However, as the rigors of scientific research continue, things change, hence my mention of the former planet Pluto.

As you yourself know from the research you have done, you exercise the choice to 'take things with a grain of salt.' That is what I do with the "Theory of Evolution", knowing that from time to time something will alter the course of that discipline, perhaps not fundamentally, but nevertheless, significantly.

Specifically, when it comes to 'faith', I don't mean a wishy washy gooey feeling type faith. I understand that word to mean that I have to trust in the claims of someone else. In reference to God or Jesus Christ, to have faith in his words and overall message of salvation IS EXACTLY THE SAME as having faith in the words of another messenger with a different story (you choose), if you yourself do not have the skill, time, experience or knowledge to prove otherwise. Because I don't know everything, I have to exercise 'faith' in all sorts of things on a daily basis from business to relationships. Specifically with God, Aliens and Evolution, all three topics I admit that I have not exhausted the study of any of them. I therefore have to make leaps of trust (have faith in peoples words) while at the same time filtering through what I currently know. The identical process of thought, acceptance or rejection takes place.

I am sorry that I have lost some credibility with you. I shall try to improve my writing skills in the future. Meanwhile, don't write me off, I am more than happy to be told where I need to shape up.

But I again must restate, these 'boards' are not the place to make fundamental judgments of people's character. Yes you can see traits, but its not the big picture. There is more than meets the eye (on a laptop screen).

Cheers. Greg.

[cmreal04]

Is this post really a build up for the new X-files movie coming out......

CM

[Homebelly]

In reference to God or Jesus Christ, to have faith in his words and overall message of salvation IS EXACTLY THE SAME as having faith in the words of another messenger with a different story (you choose)

Not quite,, :wink using the example of Darwin, we know he lived, we also know where and how he traveled and have conclusive evidence that the work he performed was recorded and verified by his contemporaries, we also know that aspects of this work created controversy and that this controversy was also acknowledged by Darwin and cataloged. Your right that there is a degree of faith required in accepting Darwins theories and the work that has continued to build on them, but this isn't blind faith, it is simply the personal acceptance that as individuals we do not know enough about this subject to do the conclusive work our selves and so we rely on people with more experience and knowledge in these fields to assure us the the work is sound and is based on hard facts that can be verified and corroborated. This work is also published, and so if we want to we can apply our selves and learn this knowledge our selves...
On the other hand all we know about God and Jesus is given to us completely on faith,, every single aspect of the concept is all about inconclusive and unverifiable information. There is no first person account of Jesus, there is no physical evidence. There are plenty of records from the period that might hint at the possibility of some one who might have been Jesus (The Qumran scrolls for example), but then again, there are also plenty of examples of records that should have some kind of reference but don't.. this neither confirms or denies his existence of Jesus the man.. indeed there are records of plenty of people taking on the roll of a Rabi during this period..he might have been any one of them.. this aspect is easy to believe,, the part that require blind faith is where it all starts to go off into supernatural territory.. at this point a giant leap of faith is required.

if you yourself do not have the skill, time, experience or knowledge to prove otherwise. Because I don't know everything, I have to exercise 'faith' in all sorts of things on a daily basis from business to relationships. Specifically with God, Aliens and Evolution, all three topics I admit that I have not exhausted the study of any of them. I therefore have to make leaps of trust (have faith in peoples words) while at the same time filtering through what I currently know. The identical process of thought, acceptance or rejection takes place.

Like i said.. no one knows every thing.. but you should realize that there is a very distinct difference between the kind of blind faith that is required of Religion and Aliens and the informed faith that is required for Evolution...

I am sorry that I have lost some credibility with you.

Nahh..
you haven't really
Those where strong words on my part..
I just find it a little incredulous when people indulge them selves in this kind of discussion with out really understanding the actual meaning of words like "Theory" and "Fact" and then banter out dated terms such as "Missing link" around...

But I again must restate, these 'boards' are not the place to make fundamental judgments of people's character. Yes you can see traits, but its not the big picture. There is more than meets the eye (on a laptop screen).

Cheers. Greg.

I agree 100% and with out caveat this time...

[gjm]

In reference to God or Jesus Christ, to have faith in his words and overall message of salvation IS EXACTLY THE SAME as having faith in the words of another messenger with a different story (you choose)

Not quite,, :wink using the example of Darwin, we know he lived, we also know where and how he traveled and have conclusive evidence that the work he performed was recorded and verified by his contemporaries, we also know that aspects of this work created controversy and that this controversy was also acknowledged by Darwin and cataloged. Your right that there is a degree of faith required in accepting Darwins theories and the work that has continued to build on them, but this isn't blind faith, it is simply the personal acceptance that as individuals we do not know enough about this subject to do the conclusive work our selves and so we rely on people with more experience and knowledge in these fields to assure us the the work is sound and is based on hard facts that can be verified and corroborated. This work is also published, and so if we want to we can apply our selves and learn this knowledge our selves...
On the other hand all we know about God and Jesus is given to us completely on faith,, every single aspect of the concept is all about inconclusive and unverifiable information. There is no first person account of Jesus, there is no physical evidence. There are plenty of records from the period that might hint at the possibility of some one who might have been Jesus (The Qumran scrolls for example), but then again, there are also plenty of examples of records that should have some kind of reference but don't.. this neither confirms or denies his existence of Jesus the man.. indeed there are records of plenty of people taking on the roll of a Rabi during this period..he might have been any one of them.. this aspect is easy to believe,, the part that require blind faith is where it all starts to go off into supernatural territory.. at this point a giant leap of faith is required.

Sorry, again I must clarify my point. Regardless of the subject, Jesus or evolution, the human brain, in place of knowledge must exercise a concept I called and referred to as faith. If you have knowledge of something, then you can be sure of it, and boldly not require faith. If you have to take the words of someone else as truth, with no previous experience or knowledge to reference this to, then I call the thought process 'faith.'

I see your analogy of historical evidence etc between Darwin's existence and the subsequent work done with his original claims. I can also see your point about the historical evidence of the existence of a person called Jesus of Nazareth, and in fact the God referred to in the Old Testament. My point about the exercise of a thought process I called 'faith', was just that, a thought process.

So, in a nut shell, if you tell me something that I don't know, and I have no way to verify it, but I went ahead and acted on your words and adjusted portions of my life to fall into line with what you said, yet there was no proof immediately available to me of what you said (I just had to trust your research), then I have acted on faith. (this is the way I understand it). To my knowledge, to date, and slap me round the head if need be, I do not know of any other type of faith. This particular thought process is not blind, nor can it see. It has not quantity, nor quality. Its a simple process of thought that happens inside the human brain, regardless of the subject matter. Its a process that people employ when they get to the end of their humanness.

Faith replaces knowledge when knowledge comes to an end, regardless of the subject at hand. So, in the light of my current definition of a thought process I call faith, that being to bridge the gap of a lack of knowledge, I have to exercise 'faith' with all three subjects mentioned (plus a shit load more). You probably do not need to exercise very much 'faith' at all in some area's or subjects because you have built up a considerable bank of knowledge that you have verified to be 100% truthful. I, on the other hand, due to a perceived lack of knowledge and experience HAVE to exercise a thought process of 'faith' in either God, Aliens or Evolution because with all three of these subjects I have neither the brain capacity or time to put them all to bed. I don't trust the church, I don't trust science, and well......I don't trust whoever was responsible for starting the aliens rumors

So, to put this confusion to bed, I retract my comments about others needing to exercise faith with these subjects, and want to state that they only apply to me. It's my personal faith. Others have got it totally sorted.........I'm afraid I have to admit that I don't

[landrvr1]

Is this post really a build up for the new X-files movie coming out......

CM

If so, this is the worst Viral Marketing campaign ever....



...

[friend_kami]

Totally unrelated to aliens god and bitterness, JOÃO MAGUEIJO’S BIG BANG THEORY is a pretty good show to get your quick science fix. A little too dumbed down in some parts for my liking but overall it was thought provoking.

i hear brainac is a good show if you like science.

[ThrowAway]

To me your post seemed to be suggesting we should give the same kind of credibility to those that are putting forward unorthodox ideas now as we should have been when this person that preceded Einstein was putting forward his idea and theory as in hind sight this persons original idea was sound. The trouble with this statement is i have no idea who this person you are eluding to is and so it seems to me that this person may well be another example of some one holding up another kind of irrelevant jaw bone postulating over the nonexistence of an unimportant "Missing link".... I apologize if i am wrong in my assumption and i am also wide open to being introduced to this person you have mentioned as i thought i had read about most of those that came before and who's work had paved the way before Einstein.
Einsteins theories, as they are, are sound scientific theories based on accumulated fact and as such can be proven correct, They can also be proven incorrect by altering the facts that back them up, this is also an important aspect of science as this method then proves the facts that back up the theory are also correct and so strengthens the theory so that others can continue on from that point and expand on it. In the example of Physics this is how people like Hawkins have been able to explore the world of quantum physics, it is also why anthropologists and geneticists no longer need to rely solely on archeologists to provide them with fossil evidence..

I didnt mean to come across like I think people throwing all kinds of theories out should be given credit, My point is that sometimes the world is convinced someone is wrong and they are attacked, then later to be proven correct. I understand how when people throw out silly ideas they lose credibility, its natural( personally, i assumed the atlantis theory was silly but then again I didnt ask exactly what they meant as it doesnt interest me in the least) but personally the only one of my beliefs that doesnt make people lose (for lack of a better word, I dont think Im incapable of being wrong, i keep an open mind) crediblity with me if they dismiss it is my belief in god.

If by alien intervention you were referring to the seeding of life on earth by alien bacteria the theory is that the bacteria was on an asteroid that struck earth. I wish i could remember the black guys name that i first heard this from, he holds a high position in the astronomical physics community, he produced a couple of shows for the discovery channel. I think he runs the national observatory. To me he is credible. I think he holds the same position as I do, its definitely possible and something that cant be dismissed.

If I remember correctly hawkins was the first person I read that they thought intelligent life else where is probable. Am I correct in assuming that if that was true hawkins would lose credibility with you?

Interesting to think if joao ever proved his varying speed of light theory most of einsteins work be irrelevant(so would 90% of all physics).

[ThrowAway]

In reference to God or Jesus Christ, to have faith in his words and overall message of salvation IS EXACTLY THE SAME as having faith in the words of another messenger with a different story (you choose)

Not quite,, :wink using the example of Darwin, we know he lived, we also know where and how he traveled and have conclusive evidence that the work he performed was recorded and verified by his contemporaries, we also know that aspects of this work created controversy and that this controversy was also acknowledged by Darwin and cataloged.

Your right that there is a degree of faith required in accepting Darwins theories and the work that has continued to build on them, but this isn't blind faith, it is simply the personal acceptance that as individuals we do not know enough about this subject to do the conclusive work our selves and so we rely on people with more experience and knowledge in these fields to assure us the the work is sound and is based on hard facts that can be verified and corroborated. This work is also published, and so if we want to we can apply our selves and learn this knowledge our selves...
On the other hand all we know about God and Jesus is given to us completely on faith,, every single aspect of the concept is all about inconclusive and unverifiable information. There is no first person account of Jesus, there is no physical evidence. There are plenty of records from the period that might hint at the possibility of some one who might have been Jesus (The Qumran scrolls for example), but then again, there are also plenty of examples of records that should have some kind of reference but don't.. this neither confirms or denies his existence of Jesus the man.. indeed there are records of plenty of people taking on the roll of a Rabi during this period..he might have been any one of them.. this aspect is easy to believe,, the part that require blind faith is where it all starts to go off into supernatural territory.. at this point a giant leap of faith is required.

I completely agree with everything except the records of jesus not existing. I was taught in school that the romans kept excellent records(just names and dates), of him appearing in court and his execution.

[Homebelly]

I completely agree with everything except the records of jesus not existing. I was taught in school that the romans kept excellent records(just names and dates), of him appearing in court and his execution.

Possibly..
But unlikely..
As far as i know there are a couple of accounts that where written 60 or so years later that are again based on second hand accounts and these don't really go into much detail. The reason i say unlikely is because Jesus was a peasant. If he had been aristocracy or from a higher social position then in all likely hood he would have had a proper trial and most likely would have been sent to Rome.. The accounts in the bible are often contradictory,, its been a long while since i read any of this stuff, but from memory i think Pilate even wanted to free Jesus in one account but the priest hood from the temple managed to persuade the crowed to call for Barabas instead...? The account of the Passion that Mel Gibson milked for all it was worth is also an historically contentious issue..

My personal feeling on all of this is that i have very little doubt in my mind that Jesus was a living being person, just as John the baptist was before him and Paul was after him. I'm just not quite so comfortable with the supernatural elements of the story.