ET ORIGINS – SECRETS OF THE STAR PEOPLE

hawkwing43 · November 2015

This is a very interesting and fascinating documentary. Watch it to the very end, it gave me a ton of answer to question I had. maybe it will do the same for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqj4-DE1EIQ

artan42 · November 2015

Hmm, looking a the thumbnail it appears to be produced by a company called 'UFOTV'.

I'm sure it will be a font of peer reviewed and fully referenced and supported hypothesises.

oldschooldork · November 2015

I would view it but it seems I've misplaced my tinfoil hat.....

hawkwing43 · November 2015

lol Well that's ok.

The way I see it, your going to fall into 1 of 2 camps.

Camp 1 are the people who believe most of the stuff like this, and have very open minds. They are the dreamers and have hope for better things. They don't believe what is told to them as truth, they go out and find out what is truth. edit. And will always question everything they see, hear and are told.

Camp 2 are the Sheeple of life, and only believe what is told to them by the people in power. They claim to have open minds, as long as in fits in their little box. They are the ones who walk through life programed and they don't have dreams. Well as long as the dream is ok with big brother. lol

dalolorn · November 2015

hawkwing43 wrote: »

Camp 1 are the people who believe stuff like this, and have very open minds. They are the dreamers and have hope for better things. They don't believe what is told to them as truth, they go out and find out what is truth.

And I presume camp 3 are the people who note the paradoxical nature of your description for camp 1? 'Believe stuff like this' and 'don't believe what is told to them as truth' are not as compatible as you seem to believe.

In any case, like artan42 already said, it's probably more from the likes of people that gave us Ancient Aliens, the Bosnian pyramids and similar things. If that puts me in 'camp 2', that's fine - but you seriously need to rewrite your camp 1 definition if you want anyone (including yourself) to fit into it.

psycoticvulcan · November 2015

I feel like this is relevant.

hawkwing43 · November 2015

Not everything is 100% in anything you watch and read, it's all rooted in some facts it some way. I'm Not saying everything in the video is truth, only that parts of it does make since. I like the American Indian parts, and a couple other things. Take it with a grain of salt, I don't care, but still you have to think outside of the box with a lot of things. Is it true or not? If you need someone to tell you it's not true, then there is a problem with it. If you can watch and/ or read stuff they comes across your way, and after you do your own research of it find there might be some truth to it, well you are a smarter person.

Oh and that 9 - 11 thing, I am not going to get into it with anyone over it, just that a LOT of funny TRIBBLE went down that day, and I am not talking about funny as in HAHA ok. And it all started with this statement, just saying...................

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R6ofqAW8XM

Just saying we all stopped talking about this after 9 - 11 happened.

hawkwing43 · November 2015

Have we been to the Moon , of course, might be still there on the dark side of it for all we know. If you want to keep trusting in people that will do TRIBBLE to you cause they can, by all means stay a good little sheeple. That's your choice. The love it when people don't question what's happening, or keep blinders on, or just follow them like good little sheeple. Who needs a brain, when they will think for you, and tell you what to do, and how to do it.

artan42 · November 2015

I don't think you understand how evidence works.

hawkwing43 · November 2015

Sure I do.

artan42 · November 2015

hawkwing43 wrote: »

Sure I do.

So acceptance of evidence is 'sheeple' and acceptance of any old thing is 'open-minded'? I don't think you do.

giannicampanella · November 2015

artan42 wrote: »

Hmm, looking a the thumbnail it appears to be produced by a company called 'UFOTV'.

I'm sure it will be a font of peer reviewed and fully referenced and supported hypothesises.

If peer reviewing were a reliable standard, clergy would run the churches, congress would investigate itself, police departments would be autonomous, and corporations would self-regulate. lulz Oh, wait...

artan42 · November 2015

giannicampanella wrote: »

artan42 wrote: »

Hmm, looking a the thumbnail it appears to be produced by a company called 'UFOTV'.

I'm sure it will be a font of peer reviewed and fully referenced and supported hypothesises.

If peer reviewing were a reliable standard, clergy would run the churches, congress would investigate itself, police departments would be autonomous, and corporations would self-regulate. lulz Oh, wait...

Scientific peer review not political consensus. Evidence stands on its own merit not on what you make of it.

hawkwing43 · November 2015

artan42 wrote: »

hawkwing43 wrote: »

Sure I do.

So acceptance of evidence is 'sheeple' and acceptance of any old thing is 'open-minded'? I don't think you do.

No acceptance of blindly following what is call evidence is sheeple like. When money is in the middle of the game, I call BS on most of it.

hawkwing43 · November 2015

So everyone knows, I don't think everything UFOTV produces is fact. They just run stories that show what might be going on. Some you might agree with, and others you might not.

artan42 · November 2015

hawkwing43 wrote: »

They just run stories that show what might be going on.

Oh for goodness sake, this is worse than 'I'm just saying'. It's completely meaningless supposition. Either present an argument with evidence in a documentary or label it as bollocks, that way the gullible and easily lead don't get mistaken.

alexmakepeace · November 2015

I'd hardly call science blind. Quite the opposite--its fundamental premise is not to find what is true, but to uncover and reject what is not true and in so doing come ever closer to the actual truth. The scientific community is extremely intolerant of lies and bad reasoning because in order to do science, you have to build on the science that came before you. If that science was wrong, it taints everything that comes after it. Scientists don't want to build on a shaky foundation, we want to make the next big breakthrough and be remembered forever for our great discovery.

The purpose of peer review is to put an idea in front of as many eyes as possible, from as many different organizations as you can, in the hope that someone will uncover flaws. We're not some monolithic thing with an agenda to push, we're a large and varied class of people and organizations with many different and often conflicting philosophies, specialties, and, in some instances, agendas, all looking for the cracks in our peers' assertions. Only really solid ideas can survive that treatment, though that hardly stops the public from seizing on ideas that get shot down by the hailstorm of error-checking (the paper linking vaccines to autism has been soundly rejected by the scientific community, but is touted by portions of the general population).

Even when the scientific community is largely in consensus about a subject, lies are cast out. Case in point--that scandal some years ago where a group of scientists manipulated their data to support theories of climate change. The scientific community generally accepts the idea of anthropogenic climate change, but they cast out the study anyway because it used unethical methods.

As for money casting doubt on reliability... a classic way to get someone to buy something is to convince them that they're suffering from some problem that they didn't know about, such as the idea that some vague malevolent entity if withholding the truth from you, but for $49.99, you can watch my documentary and all shall be revealed! It's a classic way of preying on people's fears to get them to do what you want which, interestingly enough, is a trait frequently assigned to the mysterious "them" that is apparently behind everything.

Also:

psycoticvulcan · November 2015

"If the government is covering up knowledge of aliens, they are doing a better job of it than they do at anything else."

- Stephen Hawking

hawkwing43 · November 2015

artan42 wrote: »

hawkwing43 wrote: »

They just run stories that show what might be going on.

Oh for goodness sake, this is worse than 'I'm just saying'. It's completely meaningless supposition. Either present an argument with evidence in a documentary or label it as bollocks, that way the gullible and easily lead don't get mistaken.

The whole point is to get people talking, no matter what side you take. Looks like I did a great job with that.

hawkwing43 · November 2015

alexmakepeace wrote: »

I'd hardly call science blind. Quite the opposite--its fundamental premise is not to find what is true, but to uncover and reject what is not true and in so doing come ever closer to the actual truth. The scientific community is extremely intolerant of lies and bad reasoning because in order to do science, you have to build on the science that came before you. If that science was wrong, it taints everything that comes after it. Scientists don't want to build on a shaky foundation, we want to make the next big breakthrough and be remembered forever for our great discovery.

The purpose of peer review is to put an idea in front of as many eyes as possible, from as many different organizations as you can, in the hope that someone will uncover flaws. We're not some monolithic thing with an agenda to push, we're a large and varied class of people and organizations with many different and often conflicting philosophies, specialties, and, in some instances, agendas, all looking for the cracks in our peers' assertions. Only really solid ideas can survive that treatment, though that hardly stops the public from seizing on ideas that get shot down by the hailstorm of error-checking (the paper linking vaccines to autism has been soundly rejected by the scientific community, but is touted by portions of the general population).

Even when the scientific community is largely in consensus about a subject, lies are cast out. Case in point--that scandal some years ago where a group of scientists manipulated their data to support theories of climate change. The scientific community generally accepts the idea of anthropogenic climate change, but they cast out the study anyway because it used unethical methods.

As for money casting doubt on reliability... a classic way to get someone to buy something is to convince them that they're suffering from some problem that they didn't know about, such as the idea that some vague malevolent entity if withholding the truth from you, but for $49.99, you can watch my documentary and all shall be revealed! It's a classic way of preying on people's fears to get them to do what you want which, interestingly enough, is a trait frequently assigned to the mysterious "them" that is apparently behind everything.

Also:

The real issue I have when it comes to money and science. You have governments and billionaires hanging a carrot in from of some scientist, and they go along with whatever narrative they are pushing. The latest elephant in the room is Climate Change. I remember when it was Global cooling, then when that wasn't going the way they figured it, it turned into Global warming, again it's not happening as told to us. So now it's just Climate Change. Ok this we all can agree happens all the time. The Climate is always changing every day. So you really CAN'T say it's not happening. Now to what level is it happening and why? again it's up for debate, but once they guys in power start with we need to pay more taxes to fight a natural Earth change, is when I call BS on the whole thing. The Earth goes though these changes every few 1000 years, from what I have seen of nature, you can see the out come of some of those changes if you pay attention to what's in nature. Did it happen of millions of years? don't know, and I don't buy into what is told to me. Why? We all have seen very fast change in some areas, so who is to say some of the things didn't happen very quickly. I don't see many time machines around, so we can go back to see it happen live.

daveyny · November 2015

Common Sense has become a lost art form...

But what the hey, can I borrow somebody's tin-foil-hat?

psycoticvulcan · November 2015

And since you keep using that word...

hawkwing43 · November 2015

daveyny wrote: »

Common Sense has become a lost art form...

But what the hey, can I borrow somebody's tin-foil-hat?

Don't you know the Tin Hat doesn't work? It only makes it easier for you to be scanned. HAHA

hawkwing43 · November 2015

daveyny wrote: »

Common Sense has become a lost art form...

But what the hey, can I borrow somebody's tin-foil-hat?

Just make a paper hat instead.

hawkwing43 · November 2015

psycoticvulcan you forgot to add..........Follow the Money. lol

alexmakepeace · November 2015

hawkwing43 wrote: »

The real issue I have when it comes to money and science. You have governments and billionaires hanging a carrot in from of some scientist, and they go along with whatever narrative they are pushing.

That happens in every field. Science is uniquely able to resist it because of the peer review process I describe above. If a corporation wants to employ scientists to push an agenda, they have to get it past a whole slew of other scientists who are not part of the organization and who are actively seeking out flaws in methods and reasoning. It's not completely immune--nothing is--but it's better able to handle such things than, say, political parties.

hawkwing43 wrote: »

The latest elephant in the room is Climate Change. I remember when it was Global cooling, then when that wasn't going the way they figured it, it turned into Global warming, again it's not happening as told to us. So now it's just Climate Change. Ok this we all can agree happens all the time. The Climate is always changing every day. So you really CAN'T say it's not happening. Now to what level is it happening and why? again it's up for debate, but once they guys in power start with we need to pay more taxes to fight a natural Earth change, is when I call BS on the whole thing. The Earth goes though these changes every few 1000 years, from what I have seen of nature, you can see the out come of some of those changes if you pay attention to what's in nature. Did it happen of millions of years? don't know, and I don't buy into what is told to me. Why? We all have seen very fast change in some areas, so who is to say some of the things didn't happen very quickly. I don't see many time machines around, so we can go back to see it happen live.

Actually, that makes it an example of good science. The universe is really, really complicated, and when you add the difficulty of measuring certain things (global temperature, for instance), it's essentially impossible to make accurate predictions right off the bat. Science goes through cycles of proposing and refining hypotheses, getting a little more accurate each time. It's a form of systematic trial and error. It works like this:
"We observe anomalous temperature trends."
"Maybe the climate is cooling because XYZ."
[Observe to see if hypothesis is consistant with observations]
"No, that doesn't match up. Maybe the climate is warming because ABC."
[Observation]
"That doesn't match up either. Maybe the climate is becoming more extreme, rather than trending one way or another."
[This is the current round of observation]

You learn a little more each time. What people who say we should mitigate climate change are doing (the smart ones, anyway) is making a gamble: they're weighing the potential risks of inaction against the cost of action. This is a subjective decision, and cannot be made by science. Scientists can only provide predictions for what they think may happen, and it's up to decision-makers to choose how to react to them.

It's like looking at the forecast and saying "Hmm, I want to go have a picnic today, but the weatherman expects rain. The weatherman isn't always right, but do I really want to run the risk of going out and getting soaked?"

As for climate change being natural or not, the question is irrelevant. Something being natural or unnatural does not affect whether it is good or bad. The real question is whether we are willing to tolerate the risk that the climate will change will inflict damage on our species, and on the other species of the planet.

If you don't agree with their assessment of the risk, don't blame science for that. Don't even necessarily "blame" the policy makers, just consider it a different tolerance for risk or a different set of values than your own.

As a side note, the current theory for why we're not seeing more drastic changes has to do with water. In simple terms, water sticks to itself, and since heat is really just molecules moving around with different amounts of energy, that stickiness means that water resists temperature change (imagine trying to run past a crowd of people who all grab you as you go past--it slows you down). That's why areas near the ocean don't have as much temperature variation as inland regions of the same latitude. So according to this theory, the oceans are going to continue to absorb heat without a whole lot of observable differences until they reach a point where they can't absorb any more, and suddenly a "catastrophic shift" (technical term) will occur where the climate changes very rapidly and settles into a new routine.

hawkwing43 · November 2015

I still don't see how a lot of THIS can be blamed on man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5wDe7CFYR0

alexmakepeace · November 2015

As I said, blaming humanity or not is irrelevant. The question is whether you're willing to tolerate the risk that the predictions the scientists are making will come to pass. For some decision-makers, the answer is no, so they're hedging their bets by taking actions that will mitigate the effects of climate change if the scientists are correct.

daveyny · November 2015

hawkwing43 wrote: »

I still don't see how a lot of THIS can be blamed on man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5wDe7CFYR0

Wait..., Wahhh??

You're NOT willing to consider that humans could be causing severe changes in the environment, but you ARE willing to consider that Beings from Outer-Space might be????

If that video didn't have so much human suffering in it, it would be too funny for words.

hawkwing43 · November 2015

alexmakepeace wrote: »

As I said, blaming humanity or not is irrelevant. The question is whether you're willing to tolerate the risk that the predictions the scientists are making will come to pass. For some decision-makers, the answer is no, so they're hedging their bets by taking actions that will mitigate the effects of climate change if the scientists are correct.

I am just going to say, I don't buy into what a few of these scientist are claiming, and BTW there are other scientist that don't agree with those guys. So the debate continues. IMO this is normal Earth change, and we are just in the middle of one of it's cycles of change.

hawkwing43 · November 2015

daveyny wrote: »

hawkwing43 wrote: »

I still don't see how a lot of THIS can be blamed on man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5wDe7CFYR0

Wait..., Wahhh??

You're NOT willing to consider that humans could be causing severe changes in the environment, but you ARE willing to consider that Beings from Outer-Space might be????

If that video didn't have so much human suffering in it, it would be too funny for words.

some of it maybe, but other stuff no way is it us. Normal earth Changes. BTW you here what they are blaming on CC now? They claim Terrorists happened cause of CC. Now who is being silly?

ET ORIGINS – SECRETS OF THE STAR PEOPLE

Comments