UFOs, Paranormal, Pseudoscience Thread

[burmafrd1944]

Weird comment. Of course it is. That has nothing to do with whether data shows them to be linked.

Vance BELIEVES them to be demons. That's a strong mental state, belief. Belief is commitment.

I BELIEVE in certain spiritual things (GOD, Soul, Free Will, Afterlife) and do NOT believe in others (Demons drive UFOs.)

I do NOT "believe" in UFOs; I study the phenomenon and the following hypothesis: " There is supporting evidence that advanced aerial technology beyond our current abilities to duplicate is operating in our atmosphere." FOR THAT HYPOTHESIS, I assess the data as in strong favor of it. This is not a "belief" situation; this is a study and analyze situation.

Maybe you can understand it this way: GOD and Soul are important enough to believe in, and make a commitment of Faith. UFOS are not. The UFO phenomenon should be studied as scientifically as possible. When I do that, "alternate hypotheses", such as demons, show close to zero correlation with the data known. "open-mindedness-regardless" is not a healthy progressive mental state, though it does allow lazy interesting thoughts and emotional biases.

this is a statement of the close minded trying to claim otherwise.

Its OK to believe in one thing but not another; that is CLOSE MINDED

 

[burmafrd1944]

To claim that UFO's cannot exist is to refute common sense by claiming we are the only intelligent life
to claim that UFO's never visited is to refute a mountain of evidence over the years

and for those that claim FTL cannot exist is to just underline how arrogant we are
we clearly do not know all there is about the universe
so to claim FTL is not possible is just hubris

 

[greyhammer90]

To claim that UFO's cannot exist is to refute common sense by claiming we are the only intelligent life
to claim that UFO's never visited is to refute a mountain of evidence over the years

and for those that claim FTL cannot exist is to just underline how arrogant we are
we clearly do not know all there is about the universe
so to claim FTL is not possible is just hubris

Seems very CLOSE MINDED of you to claim that any belief but your own is arrogance or hubris.

 

[burmafrd1944]

Seems very CLOSE MINDED of you to claim that any belief but your own is arrogance or hubris.

I am open to all possibilities
you clearly are not
And I say to YOU
Show me a logical reason there is no intelligent life out there beyond us
and show me a logical reason to think we know all there is to know

 

[TorontoGold]

I am open to all possibilities
you clearly are not
And I say to YOU
Show me a logical reason there is no intelligent life out there beyond us
and show me a logical reason to think we know all there is to know

Is this a haiku?

 

[BleedBlueGold]

this is a statement of the close minded trying to claim otherwise.

Its OK to believe in one thing but not another; that is CLOSE MINDED

You should spend more time reading this thread before jumping to conclusions as to what OMM does and does not "believe." He's dedicated a large portion of his life to this topic and is merely living within the available evidence. Evidence supports that there is aerial technology beyond what humans currently understand. Evidence does not currently support what it is. OMM isn't necessarily making any definitive statement beyond the scope of the evidence. That doesn't make oneself "close minded."

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I "like" the idea of spiritual manifestations, portals from dimensions beyond our knowledge, etc. But I also don't claim to know all the evidence that could potentially rule out these theories.

Knowing what it isn't (per the known evidence) doesn't make a person close minded to what it could be.

*I don't mean to put words in OMM's mouth. He's beyond capable of defending himself. Apologies if I missed the mark on this defense.

 

[calvegas04]

There is more UFO evidence than paranormal, and what paranormal evidence is out there is weak to say the least

 

[RudyVerse]

There is more UFO evidence than paranormal, and what paranormal evidence is out there is weak to say the least

It’s weak because there’s no aggregator. You have to seek it out because these are individuals with no agenda, no twitter accounts, and they don’t know each other or ask for money. But if you seek out the paranormal stories, they’re overwhelming and the themes become common among them.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I have multiple paranormal experiences that are corroborated by multiple people. Pretty sure they’re documented in this thread.

 

[calvegas04]

It’s weak because there’s no aggregator. You have to seek it out because these are individuals with no agenda, no twitter accounts, and they don’t know each other or ask for money. But if you seek out the paranormal stories, they’re overwhelming and the themes become common among them.

All the "paranormal" evidence is always for YouTube and tiktok views

 

[RudyVerse]

All the "paranormal" evidence is always for YouTube and tiktok views

I’ve never seen paranormal stuff on either and don’t have tik tok. It’s podcast interviews and these ppl do not have platforms nor are they self promoting.

 

[ndfanatic78]

 

[calvegas04]

I’ve never seen paranormal stuff on either and don’t have tik tok. It’s podcast interviews and these ppl do not have platforms nor are they self promoting.

A lot of it is also people seeing what they want to see

 

[RudyVerse]

A lot of it is also people seeing what they want to see

No doubt there’s some of that but you also can’t say that with any more evidence than I can say a UFO is fake and unexplained.

We don’t know anything and some are guessing on the right side but it’s just guesses.

 

[Old Man Mike]

... "we don't know anything ..." meditate on the reasonableness of ever using those words in a long term research discussion working hard to penetrate a complex mystery.

(Also, for everyone please, YouTube and TikTok are not the places to seek Truth. Try reading Books by researchers and scholars; read monographs, papers, real official correspondence, evidence statements -- hell, damm near anything but that lazy gob-feeder.)

Dr. Herbert Thurston, SJ, for example, was the Vatican's main scholar and data-collector for all manner of paranormal phenomena. Not a You-tuber. Not a Tik-tokker. An in-depth scholar.

There's no casual beer-and-a-snack method to understanding these things (with the one partial exception of having an experience oneself.) Alexander the Great was a typical lazy kid, and was learning nothing in several of his studies. He whined about it. His teacher, the legendary philosopher Aristotle said: "There is no Royal Road to Geometry."

 

[RudyVerse]

I’m unsure how one can believe in remote viewing and not consider it paranormal. What’s the technology if not supernatural?

 

[calvegas04]

I’m unsure how one can believe in remote viewing and not consider it paranormal. What’s the technology if not supernatural?

Is there any evidence of remote viewing?

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

this is a statement of the close minded trying to claim otherwise.

Its OK to believe in one thing but not another; that is CLOSE MINDED

OMM is one of the most knowledgeable and open-minded posters I've seen on here. The willingness to spend much of his life studying these phenomena shows his dedication to keeping an open mind.

Being an open-minded scientist is different than believing everything is a possibility due to a lack of intellectual coherence or objectivity.

Many of us are open to things that don't fit our mental models when evidence is strong enough to force a disruption.

 

[Irish#1]

I noticed that when someone posts in this thread questioning the existence of UFO’s, they catch a lot of backlash. Isn’t that the definition of close minded?

 

[Old Man Mike]

It depends don't you agree on whether that poster is posting stuff with errors in it, doesn't it?
Where do you come up with these generalities anyway?

So, NO. Objecting to erroneous declarations ISN'T close-minded. You apparently take it as close-minded if anyone disagrees with Anything. SOME disagreement is close-minded (especially depending upon how it's worded.) Some disagreement (Ex. "I've decided that Japan doesn't exist!". "Uh, sorry, you're wrong about that.") is not. ... or ... One can decide to live in a (weird) world where views about obviously true things come to be labeled "close-minded", but that's a helluva weird world to me.

I was going to post an example of how I do work (one of the ways) sorting UFO phenomenology, but after that last put-off (hey, man, you're close-minded) remark, it's not worth it. Genuine apologies to you guys who care. But, Lord ....

 

[laughingirish92]

so OMM do you think the WH will give us any info on area 51 because that has to maybe be the most secret place anywhere when it comes us not knowing what goes on there

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

If someone posited that David Koresh and L. Ron Hubbard were the pilots of the UFOs, most would immediately discredit it because it's an absurd proposition without evidence. We've not received signals communicating it's them, nor do we have video evidence.

We also don't have evidence to discredit it. Is it worth your mental energy to consider it? Does it show 'depth of thought' to take it seriously? I'd contend that it does not. It shows an inability to focus on signals amidst the noise, wasting the precious resource of time. People who want to take every theory as a real possibility are free to do so but, to me, it shows a slovenly & undisciplined mind.

 

[Old Man Mike]

... Area 51 releases? can't comment. It would be "close-minded."

(To be serious: Some folks on here think that nothing is serious. Others think that even though they have done no work to support strongly worded opinions, they should not only shout them out {without any humility} but then find ways to ram them up other posters' noses. Others sit around with nothing better to do than have a random thought cross their mind, and start semi-mindlessly typing. None of those types take any consideration that some topics ARE serious to others, and some others have done a lot of research learning about them. Writing a serious post on a complicated subject is not a no-work effort. IE has every right to create itself in a mode where nothing is taken seriously (though Its approach to football information belies that.) But if that is what IE wants to be {remember that "#1" is a Mod}, then it makes no sense for me to put good insider information out there, when what it harvests is flak and worse. Questions which are reasonably and thoughtfully phrased are of course good, and the units of commerce of learning something. Those sorts of questions show up here about half the time, and to those fine folks, I apologize.)