• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
edge said:
Paul2 I think said:
Paul2 said:
Would you believe me if I told you that a bright light once blew up my couch?

Yes or no?

And why?
Click to expand...
No but if you said red orb and had a witness to the event I would have to consider the fact that you did see what you said you seen.
Because I have also seen red orbs, in that case I would say yes it’s the same as I seen
. . . .
We could go father and say we could be regressed to see if our stories are truthful and match, plus we are willing to take a polygraph test, can you and will you?
Click to expand...
Edge, in order to believe some fantastic story about your red orbs or my bright lights, we'd need to have some pretty good evidence. Which neither of us has.

ETA: By the way, polygraphs are unreliable, and regression even more so.
 
dafydd said:
Who are you? I don't believe that you are Edge unless a miracle has occurred with his English. Either that or a cut and paste job.
Click to expand...


It all depends on if I am in a hurry or not plus I listened to some one in here that actually got down to the heart of the matter about my writing.
Lately I have had major injuries to my body that require pain relief sometimes, so in that state I make mistakes, or if I am tired.
You guys or most of you seem to be in here continually where I am in and out of here tiring myself out doing other things in life that's all.
I am slow at typing so by the time I have a thought and write it, words are left out that I don’t notice, I was getting faster and better till these last injuries.

Even now I had to go back and add two words I skipped over.
 
tomi71 said:
Stop asking questions. Just play the cards on the table that answer the mundane problem: What is the mundane answer to UFO phenomena?
Click to expand...


People regularly see things, or believe they see things, which they are unable to identify for a variety of reasons.
 
Toke said:
Trying to shift the burden of proof again?

The Tehran incident were Thor out for a joyride in his chariot.
Now your turn, disprove it.
Click to expand...

You can't disprove it because they work where magic and science are one and the same or alike.:cool:
 
Paul2 said:
Edge, in order to believe some fantastic story about your red orbs or my bright lights, we'd need to have some pretty good evidence. Which neither of us has.

ETA: By the way, polygraphs are unreliable, and regression even more so.
Click to expand...

But if they matched with the other witnesses that is something in of its self.
Even if they aren't admissible in a court of law it does help the witnesses in relation to seeing the same phenomenon.
 
tomi71 said:
Okay, you have all answered, but still I can´t find any explanations to Rramjets UFO examples. Let´s take just one: The Teheran incident.

What´s the explanation?

And there are many many more. You can´t really come up with any mundane explanations, can you? No. You say there is nothing to explain. Well. I say there is a lot to you to explain, since you claim that all UFO-phenomena has a mundane explanation. Just explain these things. Easy?
Click to expand...

Tomi
I went round & round with Rramjet about this one about two years ago. I don't have time to play tonight, but I'll come back tomorrow.

You are making a claim by inference that Tehran is "Alien" to quote ramjet. First, come up with what you think it is.

Tomorrow, I will work up what I think it it was with some reasoning of mine and it will be up to you to prove me wrong. It might take more than one day but I'll get it to you as soon as I can.

PD
 
edge said:
The claim is that they are not all mudane.
Click to expand...

You and I know that. Explain it to tomi71. He's the one who keeps saying he isn't claiming anything while claiming that UFOs are non-mundane.

tomi71, do you think it's as easy as just saying that you aren't claiming anything when in fact you are?
 
edge said:
But if they matched with the other witnesses that is something in of its self.
Even if they aren't admissible in a court of law it does help the witnesses in relation to seeing the same phenomenon.
Click to expand...


Polygraphs are not admissible in court because they are unreliable.
 
John Albert said:
OK then, all you have to do is prove it by producing some form of verifiable material evidence that demonstrates a non-mundane origin.
Click to expand...

Ok prove my photos are fakes, can you do that?
I know you will never find that I hoaxed them and they are the same as the day I took them with the corroborating story behind them.
You then cannot say they are mundane.
We watched this one for several nights but it was always across the creek till this night.
Till this night I passed it off as some one looking at us with night vision, I also thought it was reflections of a deer’s eyes, but it would have to be a one eyed deer.
Now that is a possibility but it would have to be a very tall deer.
 

Attachments

  • 8367661-R1-034-15A.jpg
    8367661-R1-034-15A.jpg
    123.7 KB · Views: 19
Last edited:
Now look at this picture from another angle.
Click on it to enlarge.
See the bush in front of my drivers’ side headlight?
That's the same one in the other picture from the other side, if it was a deer’s eyes reflecting then that deer would have to be about 14 feet high at the shoulder.
The First picture if you look you'll see a white dot that would be what we had seen earlier and about the same spot we seen it every night.
Now while I was there across the creek we did see eyes reflecting back at us many times and we knew they where eyes reflecting.
This orb was observing us.
 

Attachments

  • 8367661-R1-024-10A.jpg
    8367661-R1-024-10A.jpg
    144.5 KB · Views: 20
edge said:
Ok prove my photos are fakes, can you do that?
I Know you will never find that I hoaxed them and they are the same as the day I took them with the cooberating story behind them.
You then cannot say they are mundane.
we watched this one for several nights but it was always accross the creek till this night.
Till this night I passed it off as some one looking at us with night vision, i also thought it was reflections of a deers eyes, but it would have to be a one eyed deer.
Now that is a possiblility but it would have to be a very tall deer.
Click to expand...
Post the originals.
 
edge said:
Now look at this picture from another angle.
Click on it to enlarge.
See the bush in front of my drivers’ side headlight?
That's the same one in the other picture from the other side, if it was a deer’s eyes reflecting then that deer would have to be about 14 feet high at the shoulder.
The First picture if you look you'll see a white dot that would be what we had seen earlier and about the same spot we seen it every night.
Now while I was there across the creek we did see eyes reflecting back at us many times and we knew they where eyes reflecting.
This orb was observing us.
Click to expand...

I want to know what you're burying, that's what I want to know.
 
edge said:
Ok prove my photos are fakes, can you do that?
Click to expand...
As far as I know, edge, no one is claiming that your photos are fake. The only claim is that, based on the photo, it is not possible to definitively state what the blue dot is. That's all.

edge said:
This orb was observing us.
Click to expand...
You were doing ok till you got here. You cannot seriously make that claim.
 
edge said:
Probably only because with certain drugs you could fool it.
Or you listen to Geoge Castanzas' explanation on how to pass it.

:D
Click to expand...
Not at all. If the subject believes he saw what he saw, it wouldn't show up as a lie.
If the Polygraph operator was 'leading' the subject it makes any results highly dubious.
There are many many valid reasons why Polygraphs are not reliable and simply because the results are so variable and there is no way of filtering out unreliable results, they are not admissible as evidence in courts of law.

To prove something of a scientific nature, they would be deemed even less reliable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom