I have my John Wick kevlar slip thing, no way... old european Middle-Age tech when we crossed the sea !
You think I could be special guess at Alien Theory entertainment ?
I am a fan, it is relativly easy to deconstruct their thing when analysing the structure about questionning, brain ontology but also just historical knowledge most of the time.
I have a doubt now at visiting aera 51 because of what it is wrote at the enterring of the main front, it is not writed "Γνῶθι σεαυτόν" but " we like to enlarge the circle of our friends"
I am a fan, it is relativly easy to deconstruct their thing when analysing the structure about questionning, brain ontology but also just historical knowledge most of the time.
I have a doubt now at visiting aera 51 because of what it is wrote at the enterring of the main front, it is not writed "Γνῶθι σεαυτόν" but " we like to enlarge the circle of our friends"
seriously ?
Is that a resurgence of the millenarianism syndrom suited in modern cloth ?
We don't really know if that evidence is of a real craft. Especially since "would they lie to you?" is not a hard question to answer.
How many years has it been since Roswell? How many years of just believing with no irrefutable proof? Get the crappiest UFO you captured, allow teams from all over the world to study it, if most teams agree that it's alien tech then the world might believe you. That's the only way the world can trust you on this subject, there is really no other way. You get to keep your latest issue UFOs secret while allowing the world to study an older/crappier model you got. Supposedly you should have quite a few by now.
Attachments
There is no reason to have biological aliens studying us this close, it makes no sense. If they want to wipe us out they could just make a virus and drop a small vial in a random part of the ocean, from a distance, and wait it out 100 years or something. They can specifically target us and no other form of life on Earth. This is extremely cheap and extremely low risk.
If they want to observe they don't really need UFOs built to accommodate biological beings. They did in the 50's, sure. For some reason back then they had to have biological beings inside, they didn't yet have drones.
Last edited:
@Trileru
I wonder if we can even speculate about the motives of "aliens" at all. I think it's akin to we humans observing ants. Ants can't cause any possible bodily harm to us (except for a bite every now and then. And spoiled foods), while we have every mean imaginable to eradicate them. Yet we choose not to and poke our big noses into their lives, nests, even having them as pets...
Similarly, they may feel too comfortable around us as they are too advanced, either technologically or biologically.
I wonder if we can even speculate about the motives of "aliens" at all. I think it's akin to we humans observing ants. Ants can't cause any possible bodily harm to us (except for a bite every now and then. And spoiled foods), while we have every mean imaginable to eradicate them. Yet we choose not to and poke our big noses into their lives, nests, even having them as pets...
Similarly, they may feel too comfortable around us as they are too advanced, either technologically or biologically.
We absolutely can. The only place where you can say we can't understand anything about "them" is maybe religion.
Your comparison is not really correct, because the relation between aliens and humans would not be even close to that of humans vs ants. Ants can't really communicate with us, but we would find a way to communicate with the type of aliens that crash their toys on our planet.
Your comparison is not really correct, because the relation between aliens and humans would not be even close to that of humans vs ants. Ants can't really communicate with us, but we would find a way to communicate with the type of aliens that crash their toys on our planet.
We (the public) don't know. The Navy interceptor crews know whether or not they've been encountering real craft. While the publicly validated Pentagon evidence is not public proof, it is public evidence. Proof is built from and based on, examined and tested evidence. Unexamined and untested evidence, however, is not proof. It is simply raw evidence, but that is still evidence. Is that so difficult a distinction to grasp?
Back to the the Pentagon released evidence. They have acknowledged the existence of the craft in writing to the U.S. Congress via a report mandated by law. Stop, and consider how monumental that is. They claim that they don't know the origin of the craft, which may or may not be true. Whether the craft originate from an American black project, or from an adversarial nation's black project, or from space aliens, I would think the Pentagon would want to keep that information top secret in whichever case. As for irrefutable proof, the only such proof you, I, or anyone else should accept is a roundtrip flight to the moon in a craft. As for trust, well, human society and relationships wouldn't be possible without some degree of trust, but only a fool trusts baselessly. Are those interceptor 'gun camera' IR-videos, and the multiple flight-officer public testimonials all faked and fabricated? I suppose, there is some non-zero possibility that, but it seems very unlikely.
Last edited:
Why would they want to wipe us out? Assuming, to examine your point, that there are aliens watching us, it seems they don't want to wipe us out because, as you gave examples of, there are any number of ways they could have done so.
Last edited:
You can't claim to understand a thing about their motivations. You can speculate, sure, but your speculation is founded on human motivations. Humans are, of course, a very aggressive, exploitative, war-making homicidal, on the whole, stupid species. The only evidence, one way or the other, about an alien species' objectives toward Earth is that our human civilization is still here, unconquered or destroyed. Will that status continue, who knows. However, it seems clear that the greatest threat to our civilization is us. Aliens might have motivations similar to ours, or have completely, uh, alien motivations. Your perception of what, and why they would think something is a human perception.
Examples of why it's not are astray of forum policies but are common and easily found.
Aliens fly around in saucers for hundreds or thousands of years;-)
No more development, no more process;-)
No more development, no more process;-)
"L.M.A.O, we have been watching these people thriving and collapsing for thousands of Earth years, meanwhile in the craft only fractions of time have passed, or we have even transcended time and space itself"
- Aliens, hopefully not having any funny ideas with human civilizations just to "spice things up"
- Aliens, hopefully not having any funny ideas with human civilizations just to "spice things up"
I don't really care. I thought about how to phrase it but I think this is the most appropriate form. I don't care about what your congress and army are saying. Yes it's absolutely ok to consider the possibility of them lying. Is that against any law? Should it be?
This is giving me "How dare you?!" vibes.
Maybe, a joke of the elites to be able to enforce the NWO more easily;-) The hope of the lower class on the elites superior help then probably dies last;-)
Your prior comments indicate that you do care. The "vibes" you may feel are of your own choosing. You had made some confident sounding assertions, and I responded with how easily you could be mistaken.
I never gave the impression that I care about what your congress says. There's a bunch of scenarios of plausible deniability games being played, with carefully chosen words.
Entities like the ones you mention usually seem to find a lot of reasons for "the greater good" where they'd absolutely do it. Hence why I won't take them at their word, but I promise I'll believe them once they provide irrefutable proof.
Also I don't really see a reason to have a problem with this. Why would you? Wouldn't you also want irrefutable proof? How come YOU are not asking for it?
Entities like the ones you mention usually seem to find a lot of reasons for "the greater good" where they'd absolutely do it. Hence why I won't take them at their word, but I promise I'll believe them once they provide irrefutable proof.
Also I don't really see a reason to have a problem with this. Why would you? Wouldn't you also want irrefutable proof? How come YOU are not asking for it?