Whistleblower Intelligence Officials Claim U.S. Has Retrieved 12+ Spacecraft Of NON-HUMAN Origin

[wiffleball 4,712]

Did you know we've been able to communicate with our satellites via string theory for like the last 50 years? We made some Quantum Leap in that particular area right around the 50s.

[AxeElf 787]

50 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

Wrong. There is more evidence that other life forms exist. It's just muted by people who don't don't have vision of reality.

This would be an example of the logical fallacy known as "moving the goalposts."

Logical Fallacy:  Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.

Moving the Goalposts

The topic is whether or not aliens have or will visited Earth (which is highly unlikely), not whether or not other life forms exist (which is much more likely).

 

[AxeElf 787]

7 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

Did you know we've been able to communicate with our satellites via string theory for like the last 50 years?

That doesn't even make sense.

String theory is a potential unified (gravity) field theory which is currently purely theoretical and has no application to the real world.

[wiffleball 4,712]

I like what Neal D Tyson says about aliens:

Paraphrasing, take the smartest non-human organism on earth. Could you teach it string theory? Basic algebra? Multiplication tables? No no and no. Yet, the DNA differences between say primates and humans are negligible.

 

So is it really that hard to believe that somewhere in the universe there is somebody, some organisms that are incrementally smarter than we are by the same factor in a difference between say an orangutan and  people? 

 

Personally, I think that orcas are basically Advanced Scouts from another solar system. 

 

Think about it. If This Were a strategy game? Wouldn't you easily cede 20% of the globe to have essentially free rein of 80%? 80% where you rule everything? 

 

And the reason I think they're so God damn smart? Isn't because they're so God damn smart, it's because there's so God damn cruel. They literally hunt down great white sharks gut them and only eat their liver. That's some Hanibal Lector shiznit right there. 

 

There's video of these f******

Taking down an ice flow filled with seals or maybe just one seal I don't know. Or maybe it was Delta force. (One of the special olympics forces.) But I digress. 

 

They surveilled the situation. And then spaced themselves out laterally and equally and then charged the Ice Flow at a uniform speed and upended the entire God damn ice flow in a concurrent ramming. 

 

F***, the Broncos can't get half a dozen millionaire  Negroes to do that on an defensive line for 5 seconds. 

 

...but I digress..

 

 

[seafoam1 2,126]

11 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

This would be an example of the logical fallacy known as "moving the goalposts."

Logical Fallacy:  Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.

Moving the Goalposts

The topic is whether or not aliens have or will visited Earth (which is highly unlikely), not whether or not other life forms exist (which is much more likely).

 

So you know everything God knows. You know the universe the Earth the whole thing. 

Good for you.

Enjoy your "knowledge".

Next up...

[AxeElf 787]

2 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

So you know everything God knows. You know the universe the Earth the whole thing. 

This would be an example of the logical fallacy known as a "straw man."

"A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction."

No one is arguing that Axe Elf knows everything that God knows, so refuting that point is a waste of time.

 

[wiffleball 4,712]

6 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

That doesn't even make sense.

String theory is a potential unified (gravity) field theory which is currently purely theoretical and has no application to the real world.

... and this is why you're wiffleball and I'm not. No wait, this is why I'm not you and youre not ...  damn it.  

 

Ah. Just watch:

 

[wiffleball 4,712]

Just now, AxeElf said:

This would be an example of the logical fallacy known as a "straw man."

"A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction."

No one is arguing that Axe Elf knows everything that God knows, so refuting that point is a waste of time.

 

Hey, some Alias found wikipedia! Yeah you! You go girl!   

[AxeElf 787]

1 minute ago, wiffleball said:

... and this is why you're wiffleball and I'm not. No wait, this is why I'm not you and youre not ...  damn it.  

 

Ah. Just watch:

 

Yeah, dunno what this is from, but there is no "string theory technology."

[AxeElf 787]

Just now, wiffleball said:

Hey, some Alias found wikipedia! Yeah you! You go girl!   

Some of you would do well to do the same.

[wiffleball 4,712]

21 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

This would be an example of the logical fallacy known as "moving the goalposts."

Logical Fallacy:  Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.

Moving the Goalposts

The topic is whether or not aliens have or will visited Earth (which is highly unlikely), not whether or not other life forms exist (which is much more likely).

 

You're so smart. Hey, could you explain syllogism to me? You know, while you're at it? Cuz my phone doesn't get the internet. Well, it does, does but it's rotary.  Gawdam, you should see the callouses I have. 

 

On the bright side, your mom thinks my fingers are ribbed for her pleasure. 

[wiffleball 4,712]

4 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

Yeah, dunno what this is from, but there is no "string theory technology."

Ah, good to know. I'll delete the whole innerweb. *

 

Because, Midget Body Spray says so. 

 

*Well, except pron. 

[AxeElf 787]

2 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

Hey, could you explain syllogism to me?

I could, but I have a feeling the effort would be wasted.

[AxeElf 787]

1 minute ago, wiffleball said:

Ah, good to know. I'll delete the whole innerweb. 

This thread is quickly becoming a crash course in formal logic.

A "faulty generalization" is an informal fallacy wherein a conclusion is drawn about all or many instances of a phenomenon on the basis of one or a few instances of that phenomenon.

Faulty Generalization

[wiffleball 4,712]

23 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

That doesn't even make sense.

String theory is a potential unified (gravity) field theory which is currently purely theoretical and has no application to the real world.

Anybody else think this guy Jo's to  TBBT? 

 

....and thinks it's a documentary? 

 

I mean dude. Innerweb. 

[AxeElf 787]

9 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

Anybody else think this guy Jo's to  TBBT? 

 

....and thinks it's a documentary? 

 

I mean dude. Innerweb. 

This would be an example of the "ad hominem" fallacy.

"Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue."

Ad hominem

[wiffleball 4,712]

Anybody else loving that Smelly Dwarf actually linked Wiki?   

[AxeElf 787]

2 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

Anybody else loving that Smelly Dwarf actually linked Wiki?   

Are sources of information/knowledge generally treated with disrespect among you tinfoil hat types?  I don't usually run in those circles, so I wouldn't know, but I suppose it makes sense if you think about it.

[jerryskids 5,593]

It's very likely that intelligent life exists on other planets.

It's certainly feasible that they would have the technology to (1) identify that we are here, and (2) visit us.

What I struggle with is why so many crash?  I mean, all of that technology, surely they know about gravity.

Speaking of gravity, I took a short course on the "space elevator" yesterday given by Dr. Pete Swan, the head of the International Space Elevator Consortium:

https://www.isec.org/who-we-are

The concept is basically a large tether/rock concept, using the rotation of the earth/centripetal force to keep it in place, much like a rock on a string you swing around your head.  The technical driver is to overcome gravity:  currently it takes 99.5% of a rocket payload to get past earth's gravity.  Not very efficient, and that wouldn't support ambitions like colonizing Mars.

Anyway, aliens would know about this and would have a way to overcome it.  Whoever proposed earlier the idea of bending/controlling gravity, maybe @RogerDodger?, that is an interesting idea and would likely be required to address this problem.   

[frank 2,194]

 

[wiffleball 4,712]

1 minute ago, AxeElf said:

Are sources of information/knowledge generally treated with disrespect among you tinfoil hat types?  I don't usually run in those circles, so I wouldn't know, but I suppose it makes sense if you think about it.

I dunno, Polo Dwarf, how do you and yours feel about Snopes? Politifact? 

[frank 2,194]

 

[AxeElf 787]

7 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Anyway, aliens would know about this and would have a way to overcome it.

This would be an example of a non-sequitur, as the conclusion (aliens would have a way to overcome the problem of gravity) does not logically follow from the premise (alien life forms exist).

"Non sequitur (fallacy), an invalid argument whose conclusion is not supported by its premises"

Non sequitur

[AxeElf 787]

6 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

I dunno, Polo Dwarf, how do you and yours feel about Snopes? Politifact? 

Assuming you're talking to me and just got confused (again), I think Snopes started out as a noble concept, but was ultimately too ambitious of a project for two people to handle, as information exploded on the internet.  I utilized it a lot back in the 90s-00s, but lately you can debunk most any fallacious claim yourself just by using Google.

I have never heard of "Politifact" and have no opinion about it.

[AxeElf 787]

12 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

What I struggle with is why so many crash?  I mean, all of that technology, surely they know about gravity.

LOL

That IS kind of funny.  Like these advanced creatures who know how to bend time and space--or at least were able to engineer spaceworthy ships which have been en route to Earth for hundreds of years--could only be foiled by someone's high-rising TV antenna.

[wiffleball 4,712]

All right, so here's as good as many other place. I love the Supreme arrogance that we have. Not as americans, but as humans. We invented religion to make us think that we are somehow immortal. Cuz the thought of death is just f****** terrifying.  I mean, look at the pyramids and Egyptian mummies. Who Among Us doesn't think well you people were f****** stupid.  Indians? JAPS? 

 

We're finally getting smart enough culturally  to understand that the idea of Perpetual Bliss for eternity? Jesus, I'd rather shoot myself in the diick everyday. 

 

But if you run the numbers and go ahead and cheat code that the Vulcans somehow show up and help us out immensely? We couldn't move 1% of this planet to Mars if literally Our Lives dependend upon it.

 

We're just the last version of Trex, Megaladon,...

 

So I know it's a long rat. And I apologize. But our best shot? And why I agree with the chinese? They don't want to take over the world. It's a hassle. They're learning that the Middle East and Africa suck as bad as they thought it did. They just don't want us on their half of the planet. Fine. F****** aid. You got it. 

 

I don't know where we draw the lines. But this idea that there is some absolute white hat and black hat mentality on this planet? We have more people imprisoned in total and per capita than China does. Kidding me? 

 

We step this one out. Let others fight. Do you have any idea how much good we could do if we weren't the first through 25th largest defense spender , provider in the world? That doesn't even count all the amorphous foreign aid that we Hemorrhage every day.

 

Wiff out. 

 

 

 

 

[RogerDodger 797]

On 6/6/2023 at 12:56 PM, AxeElf said:

You all want to talk about possibilities, and that's fine, it's just not relevant to the conversation.

Anything that is not logically contradictory is possible, but that doesn't mean that everything is equally likely.

Just because it's possible that we will one day be able to beam ourselves to a distant planet by stepping into a device that looks like a refrigerator is possible, but not very likely.

The chance that extraterrestrials have visited Earth is approximately equal to the chance that we will ever visit other life forms, and that is almost infinitesimally small.

No possibilities anyone can suggest can change that.

I don't think anyone is saying everything is equally likely, at least I hope not.  Your mistake is assigning likelihood to things that are unknown.  Whether or not you realize that you're doing it or not, unknown doesn't translate to unlikely.  

You're also using the vastness of the universe to consider travel distance while ignoring everything else.  Most physicists like Sagan and others add to the vastness the seemingly easy cocktail that is necessary for life to develop based on our own planet to determine that there are countless life forms likely in the universe.  And statistically the possibility of that many life forms to never encounter another is very unlikely.

[wiffleball 4,712]

11 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

I don't think anyone is saying everything is equally likely, at least I hope not.  Your mistake is assigning likelihood to things that are unknown.  Whether or not you realize that you're doing it or not, unknown doesn't translate to unlikely.  

You're also using the vastness of the universe to consider travel distance while ignoring everything else.  Most physicists like Sagan and others add to the vastness the seemingly easy cocktail that is necessary for life to develop based on our own planet to determine that there are countless life forms likely in the universe.  And statistically the possibility of that many life forms to never encounter another is very unlikely.

Your last paragraph is where I fundamentally disagree. The more you know about biology? Especially human biology? The more you realize that it's not an easy cocktail to sustain life. Certainly not sentient life. Seriously take one piece of DNA the size of one flake of dandruff and screwed up? And that kid is never born. Or sure it won't last  very long.  Damage one small piece in the womb, and that focker will burn like jiffy pop in Anne's Frank's microwave. 

 

We act like humanity isn't a trillion to one miracle?  But guess what? 

 

Between our inherent frailty, the hostility of our environment, the stupidity and violent nature of humanity itself? I'm surprised if we'll make it through next thursday.

[AxeElf 787]

24 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

Your mistake is assigning likelihood to things that are unknown.  Whether or not you realize that you're doing it or not, unknown doesn't translate to unlikely.

Axually, it's precisely the opposite--it's because of what we DO know about the nature of the universe that makes contact with an alien species so highly unlikely.

So in this case, what is known is what translates to unlikely.

26 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

And statistically the possibility of that many life forms to never encounter another is very unlikely.

This is also exactly opposite of the true state of affairs.

Given the rarity of life in the universe and the difficulties involved in "encountering" another lifeform across astronomical distances, the possibility for life forms on different planets to ever encounter each other is exceedingly small.

[jerryskids 5,593]

1 hour ago, AxeElf said:

This would be an example of a non-sequitur, as the conclusion (aliens would have a way to overcome the problem of gravity) does not logically follow from the premise (alien life forms exist).

"Non sequitur (fallacy), an invalid argument whose conclusion is not supported by its premises"

Non sequitur

 

1 hour ago, AxeElf said:

LOL

That IS kind of funny.  Like these advanced creatures who know how to bend time and space--or at least were able to engineer spaceworthy ships which have been en route to Earth for hundreds of years--could only be foiled by someone's high-rising TV antenna.

If you read my (not so well written apparently) post, I was arguing against their visiting.  Or more specifically, against the idea that we have this large collection of crashed alien spaceships.  If aliens had visited, they likely wouldn't crash, and they would know how to overcome gravity.

Regarding your accusation of a non-sequitur, by "aliens" in my last sentence I meant "aliens who had visited here."

HTH

[AxeElf 787]

18 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

Between our inherent frailty, the hostility of our environment, the stupidity and violent nature of humanity itself? I'm surprised if we'll make it through next thursday.

Humans nearly went extinct a couple of times; we were probably down to about 10,000 humans for at least one period in Earth's history.

[seafoam1 2,126]

2 hours ago, AxeElf said:

This would be an example of the logical fallacy known as a "straw man."

"A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction."

No one is arguing that Axe Elf knows everything that God knows, so refuting that point is a waste of time.

 

He said, you said, that those words in the Bible are God's words. If you want to talk about logical fallacies, then let's go.

You basically believe in a dream you had.

What don't you understand?

[AxeElf 787]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

If you read my (not so well written apparently) post, I was arguing against their visiting.  Or more specifically, against the idea that we have this large collection of crashed alien spaceships.

Clearly.  I was agreeing with you, that it made little sense for high-tech alien craft capable of traversing astronomical distances to be done in by a high-flying seagull or something.

2 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Regarding your accusation of a non-sequitur, by "aliens" in my last sentence I meant "aliens who had visited here."

Fine, but your original statement was future tense, aliens would have a way to overcome the problem, not that they did have when they visited.

However, if you would like to amend your original statement to refer only to any aliens that may have already visited our world, I will allow it; it does make more sense that way.

[seafoam1 2,126]

Just now, AxeElf said:

Clearly.  I was agreeing with you, that it made little sense for high-tech alien craft capable of traversing astronomical distances to be done in by a high-flying seagull or something.

Fine, but your original statement was future tense, aliens would have a way to overcome the problem, not that they did have when they visited.

However, if you would like to amend your original statement to refer only to any aliens that may have already visited our world, I will allow it; it does make more sense that way.

You believe fully in fiction. 

[jerryskids 5,593]

2 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

Clearly.  I was agreeing with you, that it made little sense for high-tech alien craft capable of traversing astronomical distances to be done in by a high-flying seagull or something.

Fine, but your original statement was future tense, aliens would have a way to overcome the problem, not that they did have when they visited.

However, if you would like to amend your original statement to refer only to any aliens that may have already visited our world, I will allow it; it does make more sense that way.

Fine, "aliens who visit here."

Stop being a semantic doosh.  I don't plan to waste time in the future explaining things like I don't believe a small protein chain on some planet knows how to overcome gravity.

[AxeElf 787]

5 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

He said, you said, that those words in the Bible are God's words. If you want to talk about logical fallacies, then let's go.

I don't see anyone talking about God's words.

But we can continue talking about logical fallacies if you wish; did you have any others you would like to exhibit for discussion?

6 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

You basically believe in a dream you had.

Huh?

6 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

What don't you understand?

What you are talking about.

 

[AxeElf 787]

Just now, jerryskids said:

Stop being a semantic doosh.

LOL

You needed a wholesale change to your original statement in order for it to mean what you intended it to mean.

I should have just left you looking like a monkey forking a football after your initial claim that if alien life forms exist, they would have a way to overcome the gravity problem.

[AxeElf 787]

5 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

You believe fully in fiction. 

You're repeating yourself now; this is another example of the ad hominem fallacy.

[seafoam1 2,126]

3 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

You're repeating yourself now; this is another example of the ad hominem fallacy.

What don't you understand?

[seafoam1 2,126]

3 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

You're repeating yourself now; this is another example of the ad hominem fallacy.

What don't you understand about the Bible? Or what others that believe in what the Bible says is truth?