Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Well I have tried to research how true are some the things showed and 
> some are lies and others are true, but why would military will hide the 
> research of people that levitated wood?

  Why are you assuming that the "military" is hiding that? Just because
someone claims that they are hiding it doesn't make it true.

  Ufologists and conspiracy theorists are very keen to argue from ignorance,
especially if the government or the mitilary is involved. For example,
sometimes the government will publish some secred documents with large
pieces of text blacked out. The ufologists and conspiracy theorists will
immediately jump to the argument from ignorance: What are they hiding?
Is it UFOs? A world domination conspiracy?

  Yet the explanation is probably much more mundane. You see, governments
and the military do perform clandestine spying and other similar operations
from time to time, and publishing the details of these operations may
either compromise existing operations or cause political turmoil. They
may use spy planes (which sometimes can get confused with UFOs) or agents
in the field. However, there isn't necessarily anything in this related to
hiding UFO or other similar technology. It's more probably Tom Clancy type
stuff than UFO type stuff.

> I think that was real adn I'm absolutely sure the 'Area 51' is 
> developing secret military devices

  It's not a secret that "Area 51" is a development and testing site for
new military technology, most often aircraft. Many of the most famous
military aircraft have been tested there.

> and hiding extraterrestrial UFO info 
> all evidence points to that

  Argument from ignorance.

> Is a interesting series that recollects from respected Ufologists and 
> testimonials from people that had first contact, The Pacific Triangle, 
> UFO in other Countries, like England ("England Roswell"), Brazil 
> military documented people killed by UFOs, UFO today scientific analysis 
> of a possible UFO craft with Michio Kaku helping describing some 
> phenomena and other scientist, etc, I suggest you buy it or torrent it.

  I have seen quite some videos and documentaries about ufology, including
videos that claim to be the most convincing evidence of UFOs. They weren't
very convincing.

  Eyewitness testimony is completely unreliable. People interpret what
they see in all kind of wrong ways because they don't know what they are
seeing. Mouth-to-mouth word spreads these stories, and people invent new
details to them, even without realizing (that's because people do not
repeat the words they hear; instead they repeat the mental image they
got when they were told the story). Some people repeat as personal
experience something that they heard from a good friend (this is very
well documented in multitude of cases, including the infamous Roswell
"UFO" case). Some people lie.

  Eyewitness testimony can be discarded as evidence outrigh. At most it
can be used as a starting point for further investigation, but not as
evidence of any kind. Believing in something because of eyewitness
testimony is simply foolishness. I wouldn't believe even my best and
most trusted friend if he claimed to have seen something extraordinary.
(With that I don't mean he's lying. I mean that unless I get more concrete
evidence, the veracity of the claim is an open question. It's most probable
that he was simply mistaken.)

  Ufologists can compile tons and tons of "evidence", several-hours-long
"documentaries", entire libraries of books, but it all amounts to the
exact same thing as conspiracy theories. With enough cherry-picking and
selective interpretation (and more often than not complete lack of any
actual investigation) you can make anything sound plausible.

> If you're only paying attention to things that you can prove 
> scientifically or is scientifically accepted you're missing a great deal 
> that science can't explain and is part of nature: Extraterrestrial life, 
> alien spacecrafts & ghosts, etc.

  Again, that's just an argument from ignorance. "Science can't explain
this, hence it must be an UFO/ghost/whatever." No, it doesn't. Don't argue
from ignorance. If science cannot explain it (and in most cases it actually
can; it's just that believers dismiss the explanation), then it's just
something unexplained. "It's an UFO" is not an explanation.

  Why should I believe in something there's no actual evidence for? I would
most probably be believing in falsities, and what good would that do to me?

> You don't believe them? fine, but there 
> are indications of it all over the world and people doing scams don't 
> mean is all false.

  Please don't argue from ignorance. Lack of explanation does not imply
anything. (And that's assuming there's no explanation. There actually is
a very simple explanation far more often than ufologists want to believe.)

> Take the crop circles, the simpler ones are true UFO 
> making because of the impossible way they're made of; impossible as in 
> no human could bend & leave a little radiation that way; proof no, 
> reasonable doubt, oh yes.

  Actually all crop circles are quite easy for humans to make, and this
has been demonstrated countless times.

  And anyways, even if some crop circles cannot been explained, what does
that prove? Nothing. It's unexplained. Deducing an explanation from the
unexplained is just an argument from ignorance.

> Anti-gravity is something that I've seen all over the Internet some 
> people have made it and that most if not all cases have been hidden by 
> Gov. or Military specially in USA

  That sentence is contradictory. How can they be "all over the internet"
if they have been hidden?

  If someone invented an antigravity device, it would probably be an
automatic Nobel prize for him.

>, the concept and experiments are not 
> new, at least 50 years at the seems, but of course everyone that makes 
> "UFO science" is discouraged with a "bullets are so cheap" or you dying 
> of a mysterious or "natural" "heart attack" as probably happened to the 
> lead actor of the series ____ that according to people was the closest 
> to the truth someone ever made it a TV series.

  Ok, this is going so far into the tinfoil-hat territory that I'm going
to stop.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message