Do you believe aliens exist?

[Mariner]

I didn't make any statements, I just read the book I already posted here.

When I read a book, I read it critically and ask questions. Unless the book answers those questions, I regard is as inferior and will not recommend or discuss it.

 

[porchrat]

Why do we always put other life forms on a pedestal and believe they have superior hypothetical pseudoscientific technology? The word theoretical means the hypothesis has been proven, and the method of transport is in the realm of science and technology.

Your statement presupposes a humanoid carbon based life form. It's most likely that an alien life form will not be humanoid.

Colloquially the word "theory" means basically the exact opposite of the way it's used in science.

The confusion this causes in general society never ceases to make me chuckle.

 

[Lupus]

Why do we always put other life forms on a pedestal and believe they have superior hypothetical pseudoscientific technology? The word theoretical means the hypothesis has been proven, and the method of transport is in the realm of science and technology.

Your statement presupposes a humanoid carbon based life form. It's most likely that an alien life form will not be humanoid.

It's the same as down at the tip of Africa putting things "first" world countries do on pedestals, when in reality they can be behind in a lot of things.

 

[wingnut771]

 

[Brian_G]

Why do we always put other life forms on a pedestal and believe they have superior hypothetical pseudoscientific technology?

If we can't do it and they can, it makes them superior in that.

The word theoretical means the hypothesis has been proven, and the method of transport is in the realm of science and technology.

In this case wormholes are theory. And so is other dimensions, that's in string theory for one.

Your statement presupposes a humanoid carbon based life form. It's most likely that an alien life form will not be humanoid.

Nope, never mentioned that myself. But disagree anyway regarding anything intellectual (by our standards and understanding).

 

[Mariner]

If we can't do it and they can, it makes them superior in that.

That statement indicates you know for a fact that they have superior hypothetical technology. Do you?

In this case wormholes are theory. And so is other dimensions, that's in string theory for one.

Wormholes are unproven and thus remain an hypothesis. As does string theory, despite being unproven and called a theory:

Generally in science, a theory is effectively a fact. The theory of evolution is not a guess or a hypothesis. It's currently understood to be a fact, backed up by evidence from numerous scientific fields spanning many decades.

String theory on the other hand seems much more contentious, much less settled in the scientific community. Why isn't it called the string hypothesis?

Why Is String Theory Called A Theory

Possible Duplicate: Laws of Atomic Theory - how is this possible? Generally in science, a theory is effectively a fact. The theory of evolution is not a guess, or a hypothesis. It's currently

physics.stackexchange.com

Why String Theory Is Not A Scientific Theory

It sounds like science, it talks like science, and scientists work on it. But it isn't science. At least, not yet.

www.forbes.com

 

[Jings]

When someone retires from the military, their security clearance for information they acquired during service remains active. Any former military member speaking about anything classified they knew about will be charged and possibly imprisoned.

Disclosure groups make money from engaging with the public, and a good portion of the funds are contributed towards hiring of security and lawyers. As an example, David Grusch did not share any information he did not run through with his lawyer first as he had signed an NDA.

Bob Lazar was the first whistleblower so there wasn't a protocol at the time and attended a fair share of court hearings. He was charged after 1989, and he already left S4. Bob worked there in his 20's and claims to have been hired directly after finishing his studies.

 

[Mariner]

Disclosure groups make money from engaging with the public, and a good portion of the funds are contributed towards hiring of security and lawyers. As an example, David Grusch did not share any information he did not run through with his lawyer first as he had signed an NDA.

Which means he cannot say anything about anything classified.

Bob Lazar was the first whistleblower so there wasn't a protocol at the time and attended a fair share of court hearings. He was charged after 1989, and he already left S4. Bob worked there in his 20's and claims to have been hired directly after finishing his studies.

That is a scripted video. You will not have public cameras in any court hearing intelligence related cases. The courts can subpoena any documents from the government. The hearing will then be in camera to exclude the public. The camera recording will not be made public.

 

[Jings]

Which means he cannot say anything about anything classified.



That is a scripted video. You will not have public cameras in any court hearing intelligence related cases. The courts can subpoena any documents from the government. The hearing will then be in camera to exclude the public. The camera recording will not be made public.

Well, Bob Lazar did said a lot. It's not like he can take it back.

Do you have information on what the court case related to?

 

[wizardofid]

If we can't do it and they can, it makes them superior in that.


In this case wormholes are theory. And so is other dimensions, that's in string theory for one.

Yeah, and then you go and make the same mistake as everyone else. Wormholes aren’t a scientific theory — they’re a mathematical one.
Wormholes come from math built on the framework of relativity. The math checks out on paper, but that’s where it stops. Math doesn’t care about your feelings, or even about evidence — it only cares about internal logic.

Science, on the other hand, needs proof. Math says we could have 300+ elements. Science says: sure, if you can find one that doesn’t disintegrate in a microsecond

Nope, never mentioned that myself. But disagree anyway regarding anything intellectual (by our standards and understanding).

 

[Mariner]

Well, Bob Lazar did said a lot. It's not like he can take it back.

Do you have information on what the court case related to?

You're the one arguing for Bob Lazar. The onus is upon you to provide the relevant information, not on me.

 

[Maurice Kitching]

Methinks he came back in another form..

It's amazing. He was summoned, and appeared, as if by magic.

 

[Jings]

You're the one arguing for Bob Lazar. The onus is upon you to provide the relevant information, not on me.

Didn't you mention it was a scripted video? It's actually based on raw footage obtained by George Knapp.

Bob Lazar's court case details:

Case: State of Nevada vs. Robert Scott Lazar

Date: 1990 (Clark County, Las Vegas)

Charge: Felony pandering (for aiding and abetting prostitution).

Outcome: Lazar pleaded guilty, received probation, community service, and a fine — no prison time.

Context: It was a short-lived business venture in which he installed surveillance equipment in a brothel. His defense argued he was doing it for security purposes; the court treated it as facilitation.

 

[Maurice Kitching]

When I read a book, I read it critically and ask questions. Unless the book answers those questions, I regard is as inferior and will not recommend or discuss it.

Bit of the old Socratic there. Reminds me of someone. Bit unfair towards the book though.

I always have to remind myself that the quality of my questions are as good as my frame of reference in regards to the topic. The process becomes very subjective very quickly.

 

[Jings]

Age of Disclosure release date is 21 November.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1978823247690174780

 

[wingnut771]

Age of Disclosure release date is 21 November.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1978823247690174780

 

[Mariner]

Didn't you mention it was a scripted video? It's actually based on raw footage obtained by George Knapp.

Bob Lazar's court case details:

Case: State of Nevada vs. Robert Scott Lazar

Date: 1990 (Clark County, Las Vegas)

Charge: Felony pandering (for aiding and abetting prostitution).

Outcome: Lazar pleaded guilty, received probation, community service, and a fine — no prison time.

Context: It was a short-lived business venture in which he installed surveillance equipment in a brothel. His defense argued he was doing it for security purposes; the court treated it as facilitation.

Yet you presented it as a hearing where he was being defended for revealing intelligence secrets?

 

[Mariner]

Bit of the old Socratic there. Reminds me of someone. Bit unfair towards the book though.

I always have to remind myself that the quality of my questions are as good as my frame of reference in regards to the topic. The process becomes very subjective very quickly.

True, personal checks and balances need to be used. Putting the book down, running it through the mind and then rereading the passage in question might be necessary.

 

[Mariner]

Age of Disclosure release date is 21 November.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1978823247690174780

You're saying 34 government insiders who had security clearances are going to risk jail time?

 

[Jings]

Yet you presented it as a hearing where he was being defended for revealing intelligence secrets?

If you read back, the video was backup for vindication of Bob Lazar as the US government representatives tried to hide his employment at S4.

You're saying 34 government insiders who had security clearances are going to risk jail time?

Attorney Danny Sheehan, a constitutional and public interests lawyer, has been involved in Age of Disclosure. He mentioned being public in advocating for UAP disclosure ever since the 70's when he got access to classified Project Blue Book information, and it convinced him the phenomena is real.