Disclosure Project - Aliens UFOs

[Pat Mustard]

Occam's Razor, for starters. Tremendous logical inconsistencies for another.

I don't know if occams razor can be thrown into this debate, because essentially it means using preconceived notions to formulate conclusions.

No it doesn't. All Ockham's razor says is that when we've two or more competing claims for a phenomenon the one with the least explaining to do is most likely to be correct.

So in your case we've got a group of people stating that secret documents the can't show you, but which they saw in jobs they largely can't prove they ever had, show aliens exist and control large parts of the world. This is likely to be the most complicated explanation possible, with the most explaining to do, therefore without any preconceived notions about the explanation it fails William of Ockham's little test.

If you want to see how to prove a government cover up, google wikileaks, Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden. They all provided evidence which proved the veracity of their claims. With your crowd of idiots and conmen if what they say is true, then at some stage they had ample opportunity to take or copy documentary evidence to prove their claims, yet they don't have any evidence, just assertion.

[drfuzzy]

[ignoramus]

The odds that no life evolved anywhere else is almost certainly zero.
Since all life evolves from less complex life, I'm of the opinion that for a species to become technological, it must have attributes like we have.

We use 2 legs to be mobile (minimum requirement)
2 eyes for 3D (minimum requirement)
2 hands for doing the technical stuff
we have hardly any redundancy built into us (minimum requirement of organs)

Isn't this how a land animal would evolve naturally? Using the bare minimum needed to survive.

Then, sure there are planets maybe entirely submerged in liquid. Would their environment even allow them to evolve technologically?
Whales and dolphins are intelligent, but they can never physically build nuclear reactors, etc

Then we can let our imagination run wild with all sorts of exotic gasses and other molecules which would kill us, but life has evolved anyway on that planet.
I'm not sure whether life can evolve beyond a certain level in very harsh environments.
Maybe the goldilocks zone for nature to create intelligent conscious life is extremely fragile.
Maybe out of the squillions of planets with life currently out there now, only a tiny percentage will be in an environment which will allow them to become technological?
Which makes intelligent life in our universe even more remote.

Just throwing it out there...

[drfuzzy]

My brother and I were speculating about the requirements for sentient life that is capable of venturing into space.  This being has to be a builder of some sort - a tool maker.  Now, quite a few animals have learned rudimentary tool use: chimpanzees, some birds, the octopus . . . but these are usually unaltered twigs, etc., for the purpose of acquiring food.  This being would probably need an impetus to create tools in order to alter it's environment.  And most animals are well-suited to their environment.  Early humans were not.  They were prey to many dangerous animals, then some encountered colder climates and they needed fire - they needed shelter - they needed clothing to stay warm.  Early humans needed their brains and hands and ingenuity to survive. 
     To be able to venture into space, they first need to realize that it is there, don't they?  They need a way to see, or otherwise perceive the stars.  
     To get into space, they have to break free of their planet's gravity.  They have to know that flight is possible.  Therefore, either some of their ecosystem's life forms need to fly - or they fly themselves.  
     What else?  What do you guys think?

[AFTT47]

The odds that no life evolved anywhere else is almost certainly zero.
Since all life evolves from less complex life, I'm of the opinion that for a species to become technological, it must have attributes like we have.

We use 2 legs to be mobile (minimum requirement)
2 eyes for 3D (minimum requirement)
2 hands for doing the technical stuff
we have hardly any redundancy built into us (minimum requirement of organs)

Isn't this how a land animal would evolve naturally? Using the bare minimum needed to survive.

I think of that a different way: It's most efficient. Additional limbs and redundant organs are extra weight. Besides having to expend extra energy to carry them around, the body must expend energy and other resources just maintain them. If it's not something you regularly use, it's more of a liability because of what it costs.

[abaris]

The odds that no life evolved anywhere else is almost certainly zero.
Since all life evolves from less complex life, I'm of the opinion that for a species to become technological, it must have attributes like we have.

But for aliens being able to visit, they'd have to beat the speed of light, deal with the ensuing effects of the manoevre, such as dealing with about a gazillon of Gs and to master the secrets of time itself. Not very likely, to say the least.

We're dealing with time and space here. Far as we known, the universe only has a certain age and when we're looking at it, we're basically looking at our distant past. For a species, even if it is indeed possible to travle faster than light, to be that evolved, means they'd have to have some headstart. Such as skipping their own evolutionary past to go straight to being a people of very advanced scientists.

[ignoramus]

Accepting the odds that we are not alone in the universe is one thing. Believing that we have been visited is a whole other mental institution.

[scoobysnack]

[scoobysnack]

I've already provided links to listen to the people that work in the shadow government.

And logic dictates that if such a shadow government exists - one capable of keeping such secrets and with such an illegal agenda, whistle blowers would quickly disappear. Anyone privy to secrets would know that.

Perhaps you think they know that we know that so they allow whistle blowers to live because they know they won't be believed. But that would encourage more whistle blowers. Eventually, the whole thing would fall apart.

Then there is what should be the most obvious thing of all. There are real-life parallels of Fox Mulder from The X-Files - principled people who are professional investigators. People in a position to act on information from whistle blowers inside a shadow government if such existed. Do you honestly think you know something they don't? You think foreign intelligence services who would like nothing more than to get a leg up on the US - so they could increase their own power position - wouldn't know something that you do? That they wouldn't act on it?

It amazes me that people like you don't consider such obvious flaws in your "theories."

These clowns you linked to are either delusional or (more likely) setting themselves up for a payday in the form of a book deal, interview or such. Occam's Razor.

I've said it before but it bears repeating: Use your head!

Most people will not listen to whistle blowers, so it's know that secrets can be kept. Even if they are know, they are understood to be strange beliefs, so no one will take it serious until it's in the controlled corporate media, which will not happen. The thing with the intelligence services is they are on the same page, because we are the common enemy. Until there is a common agreement to reveal this, they are all working together. Even in a world where it's perceived to be nation against nation, at that level, there is a common understanding. Nations will be brought against nations for the purpose of combining them under the global leadership.

[Minimalist]

secret from everyone except some crazy white people in Iowa and New Mexico.

Who then write books to sell to gullible fools.