OT How many of you believe in aliens?

[DrXparaMental]

It's interesting to note that the United States successfully developed, tested and put into use, atomic "engines" or power sources for space travel in the late 60s. When is the last time you heard of atomic based flight and space travel technology? Stealth technology existed and is well documented as being in working order in the early 70s.

so I ask you what you know about 'atomic engines' and quantum physics. you just resorted to name calling, I followed.

First off, what was untrue about the above quote? Where, within the context of the above quote, is there a claim on my behalf that I I have a full working understanding of "Atomic Engines"?

This is what you actually responded with: omfg this is what happens when 'artists' try to talk science. utter failure.

wtf do you mean by 'atomic engines'?? do you know in what way nuclear reactors are used for propulsion? do you know what quantum mechanics even means??

The above post is far more an arrogant, rude and condescending statement that reeks of belittlement based on sheer assumptions concerning my understanding without so much as a strand of substantiation, than it is a real or honest line of questioning.

In "talking science", how exactly did I fail? Where is the falsehood within my statements Tone Deft? When a journalist or reporter states something as fact, do they need to have a full working understanding of the subject matter they are reporting to be correct or above failure? Of course not.




http://forum.ableton.com/viewtopic.php?p=906775#p906775
I do understand exactly how nuclear propulsion works

absolute BULLSHIT! hilarious!!!

Could you prove that what I stated was "bullshit" please? You should be able to no problem considering the self righteous nature of your claim.

here again you go on about quantum physics, yet you know nothing about it.
http://forum.ableton.com/viewtopic.php?p=906794#p906794
I'd read a post with quantum physics in it and ask for more, you have nothing more than name calling. I shouldn't have asked. it's a fine line between sci fi fun and actual science. sci fi is fun because you can break the rules, I should not have asked about real science, my bad.

Could you please quote specifically what you are referring to? The above is gibberish otherwise. The link goes to a page where there is NO evidence of me whatsoever "going on" about Quantum Physics.

at one point you ask me to qualify myself
http://forum.ableton.com/viewtopic.php?p=906768#p906768
so I did, I have formal training in science. now you're holding that against me. classy move asshole. sorry, it's a really fun degree to have in the 21st century, applicable to a LOT of stuff.

Forgive me your hindass, but what I did was ask you to qualify yourself, not describe yourself. You still have not "qualified" anything have you? You seem pretty good at self ascribed glorious attributes without a shred of substantiation. I wonder why?




you've got issues man, serious issues. next I expect you to start a whole new thread. check DrX's post history, OT whore, no help to anyone, knows nothing, does nothing but OT and the occasional minor Live topic. you do this place no good.

why would I share my music with you?? you're seriously creepy. your link between my love of science and lack of tuneage was really really lame. wow. dude, even in your PMs to me, you've always made me uncomfortable. I'll leave those details out, I felt bad for you.

once again, my condolences to your wife, you're an insufferable quibbler.

Other than useless drivel and a bit of your pretend dick measuring, could you in ANY way substantiate ANYTHING you just arrogantly and self importantly claimed? I wasn't aware that this was the "Tone Deft Forums". Dude, I can't believe what a prick you are being without a shred of evidence to back up ANYTHING you have stated thus far. Sad.

Incidentally, thanks for all your help in this thread. You are most certainly the most self aggrandizing poster I have learned about in a LONG time. Again, thanks for your help old wise Ableton Live user!

PS. I would actually APPRECIATE if you would share those PMs with everyone here. I'd love to know what those creepy details are myself. Dude...ever heard of SSRIs? Stop by a drug store near you today!

[Tone Deft]

He's a complicated man
and no-one understands him but his forum.

DEFT!

laughter appreciated. this won't end until he runs out of breathe or starts another thread. remember his 'natural talent' thread? on and on and on...

you're a good guy Russ, some of us could learn a lot from you. I respect your patience with me.

[DrXparaMental]

He's a complicated man
and no-one understands him but his forum.

DEFT!

laughter appreciated. this won't end until he runs out of breathe or starts another thread. remember his 'natural talent' thread? on and on and on...

you're a good guy Russ, some of us could learn a lot from you. I respect your patience with me.

Hey dude, I'm laughing at you and have been patient. What about me?

[Tone Deft]

He's a complicated man
and no-one understands him but his forum.

DEFT!

laughter appreciated. this won't end until he runs out of breathe or starts another thread. remember his 'natural talent' thread? on and on and on...

you're a good guy Russ, some of us could learn a lot from you. I respect your patience with me.

Hey dude, I'm laughing at you and have been patient. What about me?

you're a complicated alien here to destroy the earth one forum at a time.

[b0unce]

funny_pic_to_lighten_the_mood.jpg

*humourous quip*

[UKRuss]

you're a good guy Russ, some of us could learn a lot from you.

By 'us' you mean...aliens...and by 'learn' you mean PROBE!



...and we're back on topic.

[b0unce]

you're a good guy Russ, some of us could learn a lot from you.

By 'us' you mean...aliens...and by 'learn' you mean PROBE!



...and we're back on topic.

see what I mean ?
You're all a shower of jaffa tosspots imo.

[UKRuss]

[Grifter]

Code: Select all

http://www.gravwave.com

Nice tech Buzz Aldrin a 'Director' has going on there.

Code: Select all

http://www.gravwave.com/chi_joint_project.htm

[Machinesworking]

point being, there are major holes in all the theories to date, meaning in other words that we haven't really got a fucking clue what is going on beyond a certain point.

This is one of those statements that people always make when they try to wiggle out of their attempts at mixing science and spirituality. As if the reasonable doubt of scientific theory allows for drug taking indians to have secret knowledge of the universe that rational western scientists cannot?? Read that sentence for what it means, not how your inbuilt archetypes apply characters to the two concepts. Don't sit there and buy into pseudo science because you want to believe the cool old indian has mastered quantum physics over the stuffed shirt physicist.

I kind of like the thought that some of these old shaman dudes who have lived for thousands of years in a way that is very different to the "western" way of thinking might have started to discover some things about how we interact with the universe that is harder, or slower, to discover when you explore from a point of view where everything has to be proven or formulated mathematically.

Liking the thought does not make it reality. I like the idea of war torn people not being executed and terrorized, but my thinking that doesn't shape reality, just like new age types desperately trying to link quantum physics to their spiritual beliefs doesn't make the two magically combine.

[Machinesworking]

Google, same thing I had to use for your irrefutable evidence. My interest in psychology was 1o years ago, so specific books are lost to me. AFA the spiritual reference, you're not the only poster here, and I have to agree with Tone AFA your understanding of the science backing up your claims.

So in other words, guy with cool name, you're basically just blathering.

Wanted to address this, busy time of year for me etc. You made a claim that your scientist/psychologist etc. of choice, Dr. John Mack was the one with the most exhaustive studies on alien abduction and that his findings were therefore valid. Even his wiki article references what I'm talking about, and cites that he was censured for some of his studies...

You constantly post the anti-establishment message here, the lights over Phoenix are a perfect example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLUAhVkGmj0
Right bellow that vid is this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0We40rEs ... re=related
It's much more fun to believe that alien spacecraft hovered over Phoenix than to believe that the military used extremely bright flares.

It's much more fun to believe that alien abduction occurs than to believe that repressed memories come up as this sort of thing sometimes.

Or in your crowning achievement of denial, that some crop circles still might possibly be made by unknown forces! Which is just awesome in it's steadfastness! Reminds me of this kid I worked with who loved Mili Vanili, before they were caught I was trashing on them for being shallow garbage, and he defended it as talented great music etc. When a couple months later it came out they didn't even sing on their records and I gently chided him about it, he replied, "Well whoever did sing on that record, it was really good writing!"

If you look at our track record, me and Tone Deft argue more than agree on things, but again on this one, he's right. You're not a scientist, and you cherry pick your research to fit your anti establishment agenda. That's all good in small doses, but seriously if you only take one side on an issue to the point of denial it's hard to buy the rest of your googling results. What makes it irritating to me is that you didn't back up your own conclusions, I had to google results on John Mack, but in return you won't do the same, you come up with this ad homonym bullshit reply. The internet is not the end all of knowledge, and a single or even multiple articles on a subject don't win an argument or debate. You're of course entitled to your opinions, but ignoring evidence to the contrary isn't helpful in establishing the truth of said opinions.

With that I'm going to try to not waste my time with this thread.

[DrXparaMental]

Google, same thing I had to use for your irrefutable evidence. My interest in psychology was 1o years ago, so specific books are lost to me. AFA the spiritual reference, you're not the only poster here, and I have to agree with Tone AFA your understanding of the science backing up your claims.

So in other words, guy with cool name, you're basically just blathering.

Wanted to address this, busy time of year for me etc. You made a claim that your scientist/psychologist etc. of choice, Dr. John Mack was the one with the most exhaustive studies on alien abduction and that his findings were therefore valid. Even his wiki article references what I'm talking about, and cites that he was censured for some of his studies...

You constantly post the anti-establishment message here, the lights over Phoenix are a perfect example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLUAhVkGmj0
Right bellow that vid is this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0We40rEs ... re=related
It's much more fun to believe that alien spacecraft hovered over Phoenix than to believe that the military used extremely bright flares.

It's much more fun to believe that alien abduction occurs than to believe that repressed memories come up as this sort of thing sometimes.

Or in your crowning achievement of denial, that some crop circles still might possibly be made by unknown forces! Which is just awesome in it's steadfastness! Reminds me of this kid I worked with who loved Mili Vanili, before they were caught I was trashing on them for being shallow garbage, and he defended it as talented great music etc. When a couple months later it came out they didn't even sing on their records and I gently chided him about it, he replied, "Well whoever did sing on that record, it was really good writing!"

If you look at our track record, me and Tone Deft argue more than agree on things, but again on this one, he's right. You're not a scientist, and you cherry pick your research to fit your anti establishment agenda. That's all good in small doses, but seriously if you only take one side on an issue to the point of denial it's hard to buy the rest of your googling results. What makes it irritating to me is that you didn't back up your own conclusions, I had to google results on John Mack, but in return you won't do the same, you come up with this ad homonym bullshit reply. The internet is not the end all of knowledge, and a single or even multiple articles on a subject don't win an argument or debate. You're of course entitled to your opinions, but ignoring evidence to the contrary isn't helpful in establishing the truth of said opinions.

With that I'm going to try to not waste my time with this thread.

But with all your word salad here, what have you stated? Nothing. Positively and absolutely nothing that is fact or contains substance with respect to the subject matter this post underlines. You're philosophizing and assuming at best. Apparently you did not do enough research on Mack to understand the nature of his censure did you? He was found without fault MW, completely and totally. This being despite their "establishment entitled trappings" & utter knit picking. Did you honestly not know this or was this an attempt to side step reality in this case or even perhaps "color" things a bit?

So bottom line, in other words, if a person is not scientist, they have no business or right to speak about matters, that within a historically progressive depiction encompass scientific process concerning that matter. Is that your take? Because if it is, it's complete and unadulterated bullshit.

NO ONE has the right to be an self appointed and entitled elitist, or to assume someone is guilty when they don't know squat for certain. Still, I am certain it will continue to happen on a daily basis. Especially in countries run by self anointed and assuming tyrannical Dic(k)tators.

[adventurepants_]

Evidence in the context of final proof is just one form or grade of evidence. Substantiation does NOT require final proof. Only if you are attempting to substantiate proof itself is that the case. There is an abundant amount of powerful evidence to support this phenomenon. I can prove that, but the type of evidence you are referring to is "control".

Again, if you would like irrefutable evidence to support the phenomenon, that's everywhere and can be offered up all day long.

thats just gobbledygook, and is a common cry from people who simply dont have a single shred of actual evidence. Irrefutable evidence is you landing at my house in your alien mates flying saucer. Or even one single independently verifiable photograph, movie or alien artifact.

Going by your logic, Angels must exist as most Americans claimed to have contact with them, and had them intervene in their lives. They have no proof other than their convictions, and their recollections, and images of Jesus embedded in Burritos, and church walls, which can be accounted for by Paredolia.

[DrXparaMental]

Evidence in the context of final proof is just one form or grade of evidence. Substantiation does NOT require final proof. Only if you are attempting to substantiate proof itself is that the case. There is an abundant amount of powerful evidence to support this phenomenon. I can prove that, but the type of evidence you are referring to is "control".

Again, if you would like irrefutable evidence to support the phenomenon, that's everywhere and can be offered up all day long.

thats just gobbledygook, and is a common cry from people who simply dont have a single shred of actual evidence. Irrefutable evidence is you landing at my house in your alien mates flying saucer. Or even one single independently verifiable photograph, movie or alien artifact.

Going by your logic, Angels must exist as most Americans claimed to have contact with them, and had them intervene in their lives. They have no proof other than their convictions, and their recollections, and images of Jesus embedded in Burritos, and church walls, which can be accounted for by Paredolia.

Well, for starters, how about we look up the word "evidence" shall we? Would you like to pick the dictionary yourself, or will you give me the competence that would afford me equal treatment to do so? Considering the manner in which you falsely berate my logic. Go ahead AP, cite your best and most preferred source by official definition and we will see who spews the gobbledygook here with respect to what really constitutes irrefutable supporting "evidence".

Also, while you are at it. Would you mind quoting an example taken from this thread that best illustrates my blind faith related to angels and burritos as compared to this definition of evidence that you yourself provide?

Thanks!

[adventurepants_]

Evidence in the context of final proof is just one form or grade of evidence. Substantiation does NOT require final proof. Only if you are attempting to substantiate proof itself is that the case. There is an abundant amount of powerful evidence to support this phenomenon. I can prove that, but the type of evidence you are referring to is "control".

Again, if you would like irrefutable evidence to support the phenomenon, that's everywhere and can be offered up all day long.

thats just gobbledygook, and is a common cry from people who simply dont have a single shred of actual evidence. Irrefutable evidence is you landing at my house in your alien mates flying saucer. Or even one single independently verifiable photograph, movie or alien artifact.

Going by your logic, Angels must exist as most Americans claimed to have contact with them, and had them intervene in their lives. They have no proof other than their convictions, and their recollections, and images of Jesus embedded in Burritos, and church walls, which can be accounted for by Paredolia.

Well, for starters, how about we look up the word "evidence" shall we? Would you like to pick the dictionary yourself, or will you give me the competence that would afford me equal treatment to do so? Considering the manner in which you falsely berate my logic. Go ahead AP, cite your best and most preferred source by official definition and we will see who spews the gobbledygook here with respect to what really constitutes irrefutable supporting "evidence".

Also, while you are at it. Would you mind quoting an example taken from this thread that best illustrates my blind faith related to angels and burritos as compared to this definition of evidence that you yourself provide?

Thanks!

You have referred several times to "powerful evidence" and "irrefutable evidence" yet youve not provided any actual evidence beyond the normal eyewitness testimony, which is proven to be incredibly faulty under test conditions. Im not berating your logic, im simply asking you to substantiate your grand claims. I never stated that you believed in Angels, I was giving an example that eyewitness testimony is incredibly dodgy.

The point I am making is this. Many UFO believers say that there is such a multitude of sightings, and there are so many eyewitness accounts that there must be some truth to it. The same applies for people who have claimed to see Jesus or Angels. There is an enormous amount of anecdotal evidence going back centuries of such sightings. Does this prove that Jesus or Angels exist? For me, its not credible, and neither is the simple fact of thousands of independent UFO sightings.