• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Question for UFO & Alien skeptics

mike2810 said:
Not yet. One reason I wanted the OP to give a time stamp and state what is so great on what is presented. What I did watch reminds me too much of like any of the other programs on the subject.
Click to expand...

You may have a long wait. If he did that and gave an explanation about why these parts of the film are so important and new then I may pay and watch it on Amazon. But from all accounts it's the same old guff.
 
zyzygy said:
It is the custom here that when posting a video one sums up the salient points in the film. What will it tell me that I don't know? I have seen many vids and read many books about UFOs.
Click to expand...

I don't know what to tell about what you don't know, because I don't know what you don't know.

If you are a skeptic, given my belief this film is more compelling that most pop centric fair on TV, I'd like to know if, after your viewing it, it moved you at all.

My only caveat is to brush past the seemingly woo aspects, his "CE 5" efforts to contact aliens, that I'm not so sure about because the evidence on that front isn't as compelling.

But the premise of the film is much broader than arguing the existence of UFOs, or alleged alien contact.

If one can get past that, there are Many officials high up in Government, science, military, technical fields, are cooperating with Dr. GReer and there is compelling documentation to back up his claims on more concrete offerings in the film.
 
zyzygy said:
You may have a long wait. If he did that and gave an explanation about why these parts of the film are so important and new then I may pay and watch it on Amazon. But from all accounts it's the same old guff.
Click to expand...

If you have a Netflix account, you can watch it there. If not, I'm not asking anyone to pay for it.
 
zyzygy said:
They have discovered how to break the laws of physics by means of a paradigm?

Because of the equivalence of energy and mass, the energy which an object has due to its motion will add to its mass. This effect is only significant to objects moving at speeds close to the speed of light. At 10 per cent of the speed of light an objects mass is only 0.5 per cent more than normal, at 90 per cent of the speed of light it would be twice its normal mass. As an object approaches the speed of light its mass rises ever more quickly, so takes more energy to speed it up further. It cannot therefore reach the speed of light because its mass would be infinite, and by the equivalence of mass and energy, it would have taken an infinite amount of energy to get there.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23991/special-relativity-and-e-mc2



We know that particles obey the dispersion relation:
E2=(mc2)2+(pc)2=γ2m2c4
The factor gamma goes like:
γ=11−v2c2√
As you can see, when v starts coming closer and closer to c, the factor γ becomes larger and larger. In the limit that v=c. γ=∞. You could interpret this as "It takes an infinite amount of energy to reach light speed for a massive particle",

https://www.quora.com/How-much-energy-is-needed-for-a-massive-particle-to-move-at-the-speed-of-light
Click to expand...


Yes, there are air tight science offerings on Einstein's relativity.

But, who knows that a race of beings thousands perhaps millions of years more advanced than us are capable of?

It would be foolish to place a speed limit beyond which no person or thing can go faster than, no matter what the math is, on such a race of beings thousands/millions of years ahead of us

As I understand it, in the quantum world such math no longer applies?

I don't know. What about "worm holes"? I have no idea. If, out of trillions of planets with intelligent life on them, are we saying that no one has figured out a way to get around the physics of the speed of light? I don't think we can say that, it would be foolish and arrogant to project our limitations on advanced beings.
 
OscarLevant said:
If one can get past that, there are Many officials high up in Government, science, military, technical fields, are cooperating with Dr. GReer and there is compelling documentation to back up his claims on more concrete offerings in the film.
Click to expand...
If you’re now accepting that there are elements of the film that are unsupported and “woo”, doesn’t that weaken your position of only being willing to discuss the film as a whole, with people who watch the entire thing? If there are specific claims in the film that you believe are backed up with definitive evidence, why not just present that in a thread for discussion? I mean, after several pages of posts here, nobody is any the wiser at to what claims you are specifically supporting.
 
OscarLevant said:
I don't know what to tell about what you don't know, because I don't know what you don't know.

If you are a skeptic, given my belief this film is more compelling that most pop centric fair on TV, I'd like to know if, after your viewing it, it moved you at all.

My only caveat is to brush past the seemingly woo aspects, his "CE 5" efforts to contact aliens, that I'm not so sure about because the evidence on that front isn't as compelling.

But the premise of the film is much broader than arguing the existence of UFOs, or alleged alien contact.

If one can get past that, there are Many officials high up in Government, science, military, technical fields, are cooperating with Dr. GReer and there is compelling documentation to back up his claims on more concrete offerings in the film.
Click to expand...

Marilyn Monroe killed because she was about to spill the beans on aliens?
 
HonestJoe said:
If you’re now accepting that there are elements of the film that are unsupported and “woo”, doesn’t that weaken your position of only being willing to discuss the film as a whole, with people who watch the entire thing? If there are specific claims in the film that you believe are backed up with definitive evidence, why not just present that in a thread for discussion? I mean, after several pages of posts here, nobody is any the wiser at to what claims you are specifically supporting.
Click to expand...

He doesn't get the point of a discussion site.
 
OscarLevant said:
I don't know what to tell about what you don't know, because I don't know what you don't know.

If you are a skeptic, given my belief this film is more compelling that most pop centric fair on TV, I'd like to know if, after your viewing it, it moved you at all.

My only caveat is to brush past the seemingly woo aspects, his "CE 5" efforts to contact aliens, that I'm not so sure about because the evidence on that front isn't as compelling.

But the premise of the film is much broader than arguing the existence of UFOs, or alleged alien contact.

If one can get past that, there are Many officials high up in Government, science, military, technical fields, are cooperating with Dr. GReer and there is compelling documentation to back up his claims on more concrete offerings in the film.
Click to expand...
Where can I find this documentation?
 
OscarLevant said:
I have a favor to ask of you. Please watch the film, "Unacknowledged", it's on Netflix and Amazon.

After you finish watching the entire film, has this film changed your mind at all or have you budged to any degree on your position on UFOs?
Click to expand...
.

Just to humour you I watched the first ten minutes of 'Unacknowledged'. The same old sententiously delivered conspiracy claptrap. Even to please you I could not force myself to watch any more - sorry.
 
Helix said:
for any biological creature incapable of folding the universe over on itself. the rules say that there's probably no way to exceed the speed of light unless infinite mass is something you enjoy, and probably not even then. look at that ****, man. those are galaxies. and those are just the ones that we can see. those distances are incredible.
Click to expand...

Some believe aliens travel in ways different from those you assume.

https://medium.com/we-are-not-alone...s-how-they-travel-space-and-time-fee564a2cf68
 
WCH said:
They have Googlemaps?

Here's one way they could find us...open invitations.

https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/golden-record/
Click to expand...
It hasn't got to the nearest star yet. That will take a while.

According to NASA, "In about 40,000 years, Voyager 1 will drift within 1.6 light-years (9.3 trillion miles) of AC+79 3888, a star in the constellation of Camelopardalis which is heading toward the constellation Ophiuchus."
 
HonestJoe said:
If you’re now accepting that there are elements of the film that are unsupported and “woo”, doesn’t that weaken your position of only being willing to discuss the film as a whole, with people who watch the entire thing? If there are specific claims in the film that you believe are backed up with definitive evidence, why not just present that in a thread for discussion? I mean, after several pages of posts here, nobody is any the wiser at to what claims you are specifically supporting.
Click to expand...

My objective is to see if the film as a whole has moved any of the Skeptics.
Film does a much better job of presenting his case than I could ever do and I wouldn't have acquired the answer to my question by parsing it out on this forum.
 
zyzygy said:
Marilyn Monroe killed because she was about to spill the beans on aliens?
Click to expand...

Guess it sounds far-fetched, but it all depends on the veracity and validity of the document that points to it. I don't think Greer would be such a fool as to flaunt a forged document. Surely the High government officials, scientists, technicians, and military personnel and so forth who are cooperating with him wouldn't cooperate with him he's hyping forged documents. Sure in the 20-something years of his doing this I'm sure debunkers can find some faults or two as they could on just about anyone, but that doesn't negate the above premise. But What what do I know?

Keep an open mind, but healthy skepticism is good, too. Knee-jerk skepticism is not healthy. Follow all thought streams to their ultimate conclusion living no stone unturned.
 
Last edited:
OscarLevant said:
My objective is to see if the film as a whole has moved any of the Skeptics.
Film does a much better job of presenting his case than I could ever do and I wouldn't have acquired the answer to my question by parsing it out on this forum.
Click to expand...

The answer is that the film is that same old CT crap. Why do you come to a discussion site and refuse to discuss?
 
OscarLevant said:
Guess it sounds far-fetched, but it all depends on the veracity and validity of the document that points to it. I don't think Greer would be such a fool as to flaunt a forged document. Surely the High government officials, scientists, technicians, and military personnel and so forth who are cooperating with him wouldn't cooperate with him he's hyping forged documents. Sure in the 20-something years of his doing this I'm sure debunkers can find some faults or two as they could on just about anyone, but that doesn't negate the above premise. But What what do I know?

Keep an open mind, but healthy skepticism is good, too. Knee-jerk skepticism is not healthy. Follow all thought streams to their ultimate conclusion living no stone unturned.
Click to expand...

I have come to an ultimate conclusion about aliens visiting us. The Marilyn Monroe CT is babble from the sick bed.
 
zyzygy said:
The answer is that the film is that same old CT crap. Why do you come to a discussion site and refuse to discuss?
Click to expand...

I asked a question which required some participation so don't participate
 
OscarLevant said:
I asked a question which required some participation so don't participate
Click to expand...

It was not a question. "Watch this film" is not a question. And one member attempted to watch it and gave up because it's the same old CT tosh. You are not participating in a discussion. Put forward some of the salient points in the film and we will discuss them. We have no idea about what you wish to discuss.
 
Remember this Oscar?
HonestJoe said:
If you’re now accepting that there are elements of the film that are unsupported and “woo”, doesn’t that weaken your position of only being willing to discuss the film as a whole, with people who watch the entire thing? If there are specific claims in the film that you believe are backed up with definitive evidence, why not just present that in a thread for discussion? I mean, after several pages of posts here, nobody is any the wiser at to what claims you are specifically supporting.
Click to expand...
 
Sampson Simpson said:
in the entire universe you are correct, but here, in our solar system, flying around earth is ridiculous
Click to expand...

Not sure exactly of your point. Humans, strictly speaking, can "fly" only in the atmosphere. Outside of the atmosphere we are no longer flying, we are just on a trajectory and different rules come into play.

If you are trying to say that no aliens have orbited our planet or visited our planet, there is ample evidence to the contrary.
 
OscarLevant said:
Film does a much better job of presenting his case than I could ever do
Click to expand...
I disagree quite strongly. Film is a very good way of triggering emotional reactions, brushing over logical holes and making it difficult to follow up claims and accusations. It may well be better at changing people’s opinions but not in a positive way. That’s why you’ll find most propaganda is made up or images and film while scientific and technical documentation is usually text-based.

It may well be interesting to see how viewers respond to the documentary, though from a psychological point of view. Simply asking people who (claim to have) watched it isn’t a very solid method for assessing that though.

Also, the description of the film suggests it covers a wide range of ground so it’s not clear what you expect people to be sceptical of prior to watching; That there have been sightings of flying objects that were (and remain) unidentified, that there are formal efforts to cover-up the details of some of those sightings or that UFO sightings are caused by spacecraft piloted by an identified set of extra-terrestrial beings. The question “Do you believe in UFOs?” is pretty much meaningless alone.
 
zyzygy said:
I have come to an ultimate conclusion about aliens visiting us. The Marilyn Monroe CT is babble from the sick bed.
Click to expand...

The claim rises or falls on the authenticity of the document from which Dr. Greer based the allegation. Why would leading officials of government, science, technical fields, military, etc., associate with a man who is flaunting forged documents?

I also concede that often extraordinary claims are debunked, thats' true. But not always.

Until someone can definitively debunk the doc, or give more information pertaining to the doc and the context surrounding it, if it is legit, which would undermine the allegation beyond knee-jerk declarations, I'm inclined to accept Dr. Greer's claim. But, if there are serious info to debunk it, I'll definitely look at it, let the chips fall where they may.
 
zyzygy said:
Remember this Oscar?
Click to expand...


I remember that my only objective in this thread is to seek an answer to the question:

For UFO skeptics, did the film change your mind or move the needle of your skepticism, if only a little?

I only asked that question because I believed that the film was a notch above the usual pop-centric fair offered on TV ( outside of netflix and amazon universe). I certainly am resigned to the fact that most UFO skeptics are so entrenched in their view, and sure, I can understand, most of the pro UFO stuff is very unconvincing, but I'm resigned to the fact that most skeptics will assume it's more of the same, and won't bother. For the few who are not that entrenched, who are more in the sitting on the fence category, I'm hoping a few of those will engage.

Thing is, To answer the question would require watching the film. Now, I realize many or most probably don't want to bother, and that's fine.

But, a few might, and I would be interested in their answer to the question.


That's it. I was not trying to get into the usual thing of discussing this or that about a particular film.


However, after watching the film, I would be willing to discuss whatever it is anyone wants to discuss, or debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom