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

[jerryskids 4,605]

15 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

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.

I see your LOL and raise you a LOLOL.

Intelligent people could follow the meaning of my post.  And then there is you.  

[AxeElf 786]

1 hour ago, seafoam1 said:

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

If you would like to discuss the Bible and what people believe about it, I will be glad to do so in the Bible thread, rather than hijacking this one.

[RogerDodger 595]

1 hour ago, AxeElf said:

Given the rarity of life in the universe 

There you go again.  Assigning likelihood to something unknown.

Again, most scientists agree after looking at what we do know, how easy life started and thrived on this planet under very harsh conditions most of the time, that there is very high likelihood of life throughout the universe.  What are you looking at to say life is hard or unique to us?  We're just a pale blue dot. 

Hell, we still haven't ruled out that there wasn't life on Mars, our closest planet in a rinky dink solar system let alone all the ice moons of Jupiter. The odds shoot way up when we figure out multiple planets in a tiny solar system developed life.

[AxeElf 786]

59 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Intelligent people could follow the meaning of my post.  And then there is you.

This is a non-sequitur followed by an ad hominem; a compound fallacy, if you will.

Well, I've spent most of an afternoon trying to get this thread back on topic, but it seems you guys are having none of it.

So if anyone wants to discuss the probability of alien lifeforms visiting Earth, I will be happy to participate, but if it's just going to be a bunch of juvenile hand-waving and poop-flinging, I wi8ll leave you to it.

[RogerDodger 595]

2 hours ago, jerryskids said:

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.   

The crashes are more likely our secret military testing that we don't mind people blaming on UFOs.  

[AxeElf 786]

1 minute ago, RogerDodger said:

There you go again.  Assigning likelihood to something unknown.

Nonsense.  I am speaking from what IS known about the universe.

2 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

What are you looking at to say life is hard or unique to us?

I've never said that.

3 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

Hell, we still haven't ruled out that there wasn't life on Mars, our closest planet in a rinky dink solar system let alone all the ice moons of Jupiter.

Well, we have ruled out life on Mars (or any other planet in the solar system) that is developed to the extent of visiting other planets. let alone spanning interstellar distances--and those are the life forms that are the topic of this thread.

[seafoam1 1,151]

7 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

There you go again.  Assigning likelihood to something unknown.

Again, most scientists agree after looking at what we do know, how easy life started and thrived on this planet under very harsh conditions most of the time, that there is very high likelihood of life throughout the universe.  What are you looking at to say life is hard or unique to us?  We're just a pale blue dot. 

Hell, we still haven't ruled out that there wasn't life on Mars, our closest planet in a rinky dink solar system let alone all the ice moons of Jupiter. The odds shoot up when we figure out multiple planets in a tiny solar system developed life.

The guy plays bible like he does fantasy football. Sucks. Did you see his last mock draft? 

I am a full on believer in God and he can't even convince me. 

[RogerDodger 595]

1 minute ago, AxeElf said:

Nonsense.  I am speaking from what IS known about the universe.

I've never said that.

Well, we have ruled out life on Mars (or any other planet in the solar system) that is developed to the extent of visiting other planets. let alone spanning interstellar distances--and those are the life forms that are the topic of this thread.

You keep saying that your option is based on what IS known but have yet to provide anything of reference to back that up.  - Invincible ignorance fallacy

The evidence of any life supports evidence to the magnitude of all types of life in the universe.  You moved the goal posts back to discount my argument. - Moving the goal post fallacy. 

[AxeElf 786]

5 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

I am a full on believer in God and he can't even convince me. 

Straw man fallacy.  We have never discussed anything regarding God or the Bible, so I haven't tried to convince you of anything.

[seafoam1 1,151]

4 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

Straw man fallacy.  We have never discussed anything regarding God or the Bible, so I haven't tried to convince you of anything.

You are stupid. Sucks to have idiots like you pushing faith in God.

[RogerDodger 595]

On 6/6/2023 at 12:20 PM, AxeElf said:

The unimaginable size of the universe is the very thing that makes it almost unimaginable for other life forms to travel here--or for us to ever travel there.

And that is why there is an almost infinitesimally small chance that you are right about "them" already being here, to answer seafoam's question.

Let's get back to your main position that you used to support all your claims.

Bold is wrong.  Infinite universe means infinite possibilities. -  Inverse error fallacy

[RogerDodger 595]

[seafoam1 1,151]

1 minute ago, RogerDodger said:

Let's get back to your main position that you used to support all your claims.

Bold is wrong.  Infinite universe means infinite possibilities. -  Inverse error fallacy

He doesn't know what a fallacy is.

[AxeElf 786]

2 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

You keep saying that your option is based on what IS known but have yet to provide anything of reference to back that up.  - Invincible ignorance fallacy

There is no such fallacy in logic; the only reference I can see to the term at all is in regards to a Catholic concept regarding ignorance that is resolvable through personal effort (vincible ignorance) and ignorance that is not resolvable through personal effort (invincible ignorance).

I'm sorry, but I expect that the general size and emptiness of the universe should be commonly-understood concepts to anyone with an interest in the likelihood of alien visitors.  I don't feel compelled to provide citations to establish those facts.

The fact that you would even need to request them tells me a lot.

[wiffleball 4,507]

I try to be as non-contentious as I can around here. But some of you guys are just f****** stupid. For example, any technology sucks. Freaking Will Smith took out an entire Invasion force with a cigar, his bald wife and apparently his ipod.

 

Him and a damn jew. 

Why do you think we hate these people?

 

Google Audie Murphy. One white guy killed I nazis.  

[RogerDodger 595]

1 minute ago, seafoam1 said:

He doesn't know what a fallacy is.

It's cool, he just lost, there is no way out for him.  

[RogerDodger 595]

1 minute ago, AxeElf said:

There is no such fallacy in logic; the only reference I can see to the term at all is in regards to a Catholic concept regarding ignorance that is resolvable through personal effort (vincible ignorance) and ignorance that is not resolvable through personal effort (invincible ignorance).

I'm sorry, but I expect that the general size and emptiness of the universe should be commonly-understood concepts to anyone with an interest in the likelihood of alien visitors.  I don't feel compelled to provide citations to establish those facts.

The fact that you would even need to request them tells me a lot.

Ad hominem

[seafoam1 1,151]

1 minute ago, RogerDodger said:

It's cool, he just lost, there is no way out for him.  

He's lost. 

[RogerDodger 595]

For those keeping score at home, notice that I did not once attack or mention Axe's intelligence.  Once he got backed into a corner he did exactly what he accused others of doing to him.

[AxeElf 786]

4 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

Inverse error fallacy

The inverse error fallacy is when you infer the inverse of a conditional, such as inferring that "We will get married if the sun is shining," means that you will not get married if it is raining.

What you have quoted is not an example of this fallacy.

[Voltaire 3,977]

2 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

He doesn't know what a fallacy is.

That's what girl trannies carve out of their forearm and attach to their groin 

[seafoam1 1,151]

1 minute ago, Voltaire said:

That's what girl trannies carve out of their forearm and attach to their groin 

Yuck. Axelf is hurting the word of God. So sad.

[AxeElf 786]

3 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

Ad hominem

Ad hominem is only a fallacy when the subject is NOT the person.

When we are discussing your ignorance of the universe, criticisms of your understanding are relevant rather than fallacious.

[AxeElf 786]

7 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

Once he got backed into a corner he did exactly what he accused others of doing to him.

No, what I am accusing others of doing is using hand-waving and sophistry (logical fallacies) rather than rational arguments.

I am using rational arguments to show people why their sophistry fails in regards to alien visitors; that's very different.

[RogerDodger 595]

1 minute ago, AxeElf said:

No, what I am accusing others of doing is using hand-waving and sophistry (logical fallacies) rather than rational arguments.

I am using rational arguments to show people why their sophistry fails in regards to alien visitors; that's very different.

You're failing.  

[RogerDodger 595]

7 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

Ad hominem is only a fallacy when the subject is NOT the person.

When we are discussing your ignorance of the universe, criticisms of your understanding are relevant rather than fallacious.

Like this, when seafoam' subject was you.

On 6/6/2023 at 2:11 PM, seafoam1 said:

You are incredibly wrong. You are really limited in your thinking. Just completely ignorant.

 

On 6/6/2023 at 3:18 PM, AxeElf said:

I'm afraid I'm not going to engage with you in ad hominem attacks.

- Inconsistency fallacy.

[RogerDodger 595]

2 hours ago, AxeElf said:

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.

Back to your main premise.  You have anything other that a probably statement?

2 hours ago, AxeElf said:

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 1,151]

2 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

Like this, when seafoam' subject was you.

 

- Inconsistency fallacy.

Dear Lord. Dude will not say what he stands for. FALLACY!!!

 

[AxeElf 786]

4 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

Like this, when seafoam' subject was you.

This would be another example of the "faulty generalization" fallacy.

My masturbatory habits were never the subject.

You requested citations to resolve your ignorance about the size and relative emptiness of the universe, and I responded to that subject, noting that a person who has interest in the topic of alien visitors would surely already be informed on these matters, and noting further that your ignorance of these matters tells me a lot regarding your ability to discuss this topic rationally.

11 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

Inconsistency fallacy.

In what sense?

9 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

You have anything other that a probably statement?

Nope, that's it.  Just that what we know about the universe makes it incredibly improbable that species arising on different planets in the universe would ever encounter each other.

You have anything other than hand-waving?

[RogerDodger 595]

2 hours ago, AxeElf said:

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.

Let's explore this a little closer, and I'll try to be brief.  Genetic findings suggest humans experienced a sizeable reduction of population about 1 million years ago.  It suggests we experienced a catastrophic event, like a supervalcano.   

Ok, let's examine what that means in relation to life and the possibility of life throughout the universe (the debate topic whenever you haven't switched the topic to someone to insult them). Life is susceptible to catastrophic events, if we wait long enough we will all die when our sun supernovas.  That doesn't say anything about life elsewhere in the universe.  What does say something about life elsewhere in the universe is the fact that at such reduced numbers we survived and had many population explosions since then.  That speaks to life's resiliencies, not it's frailties.

Using an extra ordinary geothermal event to paint the picture that humans are frail is very disingenuous in this case, or uniformed.

[RogerDodger 595]

3 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

This would be another example of the "faulty generalization" fallacy.

My masturbatory habits were never the subject.

You requested citations to resolve your ignorance about the size and relative emptiness of the universe, and I responded to that subject, noting that a person who has interest in the topic of alien visitors would surely already be informed on these matters, and noting further that your ignorance of these matters tells me a lot regarding your ability to discuss this topic rationally.

In what sense?

Nope, that's it.  Just that what we know about the universe makes it incredibly improbable that species arising on different planets in the universe would ever encounter each other.

You have anything other than hand-waving?

Hand waving is assigning probability to unknowns.   If you can't back up your assertions you've lost.  Debate 101.

[RogerDodger 595]

You get a very similar argument when religious people are aske to prove God's existence.

It just is, so there.  Not very compelling.  

[AxeElf 786]

6 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

Let's explore this a little closer, and I'll try to be brief.  Genetic findings suggest humans experienced a sizeable reduction of population about 1 million years ago.  It suggests we experienced a catastrophic event, like a supervalcano.   

Ok, let's examine what that means in relation to life and the possibility of life throughout the universe (the debate topic whenever you haven't switched the topic to someone to insult them). Life is susceptible to catastrophic events, if we wait long enough we will all die when our sun supernovas.  That doesn't say anything about life elsewhere in the universe.  What does say something about life elsewhere in the universe is the fact that at such reduced numbers we survived and had many population explosions since then.  That speaks to life's resiliencies, not it's frailties.

Using an extra ordinary geothermal event to paint the picture that humans are frail is very disingenuous in this case, or uniformed.

I don't know what wiffleball was using to paint the picture that humans are frail; I was just adding my anecdote to support his claim.

2 hours 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.

[RogerDodger 595]

Just now, AxeElf said:

I don't know what wiffleball was using to paint the picture that humans are frail; I was just adding my anecdote to support his claim.

It's literally the only thing posted to support your position.  If you can't support your side of the position you've lost. Debate 101

[AxeElf 786]

5 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

Hand waving is assigning probability to unknowns.

Can you give an example of your objection?  Because the whole field of probabilities arose for the very purpose of quantifying unknowns in the first place.

6 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

If you can't back up your assertions you've lost.  Debate 101.

Then by that definition I've won, though I feel as if I haven't even gotten anyone to agree on what game to play yet.

[AxeElf 786]

5 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

You get a very similar argument when religious people are aske to prove God's existence.

It just is, so there.  Not very compelling.  

You would get a very different response from me, but in the interest of not hijacking this thread any more than it already has been, we'll have to take that up in the Bible thread.

[RogerDodger 595]

1 minute ago, AxeElf said:

Can you give an example of your objection?  Because the whole field of probabilities arose for the very purpose of quantifying unknowns in the first place.

Then by that definition I've won, though I feel as if I haven't even gotten anyone to agree on what game to play yet.

You're the last car on the lead lap.  You just think you're winning.

[AxeElf 786]

2 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

It's literally the only thing posted to support your position.

Perhaps you missed what my position was--it has nothing to do with the frailty of humans.

My position is that the vastness and relative emptiness of space makes any encounter between species evolving in different solar systems incredibly improbable.

[AxeElf 786]

1 minute ago, RogerDodger said:

You're the last car on the lead lap.  You just think you're winning.

So "no" on the example?

[RogerDodger 595]

2 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

Perhaps you missed what my position was--it has nothing to do with the frailty of humans.

My position is that the vastness and relative emptiness of space makes any encounter between species evolving in different solar systems incredibly improbable.

If you have anything that backs up that statement I'm all ears, otherwise this is turning into a snooze fest.