Rampage explains how outer space is a hoax

[Andy Capp]

I'm not giving Curt whatever the fuck any clicks. What don't you get about that? Can you summarize what the dude is saying or not?

"I don't have the slightest idea what I'm talking about. Here's a youtube video I didn't watch so I haven't pulled any pertinent info from it."

 

[Andy Capp]

I went back and looked at it. I even found another video that's better quality.



It's not an edit or a frame skip, as I see it. I could be wrong, but, again, I don't think so. What it is, assuming it's real, is a light phenomena that takes place as a result of the field generated by the craft (as it moves off at superluminal speed).

You can't see something when it moves off FTL. It just blinks out, and presumably leaves that light signature (at least for this particular craft).

The image below should give you an idea of why it appears as a white circle (it's really a sphere):

Are you able to show me where all the energy to power this fantasy ship comes from? Please be prepared to explain how to cram all that energy into anything that can be manufactured. I'm not clicking on that video.

 

[Andy Capp]

You're incorrectly applying human logic to the situation. Humans aren't comfortable using high-risk transportation methods, so everything is engineered to be extremely safe and idiot-proof. If something weren't safe for the public at large, it wouldn't be used period. Hypothetical aliens might not think in this way at all. Unlike humans, they might be very comfortable using inherently high-risk technology and transportation methods if it meant they could be more efficient. Alleged abductees describe the grays as being almost robot-like. This race might not give a rat's ass about how many employees, clones, pilots or w/e they are they lose. Maybe the pilots are low on the hierarchical totem pole and their lives are valueless. Maybe they just upload the entity's consciousness into a new body. The whole point of something being alien is that all your a priori assumptions no longer apply. This is very obvious stuff. Even people who don't believe in UFOs, don't believe aliens are real, typically can understand these concepts hypothetically, for example when reading a fiction novel.

Here's one that has to apply. They made it this far therefore their craft and ability to operate it had to be sound enough to make it this far--and that's a long fucking way for any alien--so there has to be a minimum standard of performance which would still only allow incidents like crashes to occur as frequently as they are supposed if there are many spacecraft coming here. The logic is sound.

 

[OneOfOne]

better quality? The entire frame conveniently goes completely unfocused before it turns into ball of light .... lol it's potato quality footage. Then when it "blinks out of sight at faster than the speed of light" the frame goes completely white and stays that way for a full second which implies the light source didn't disappear faster than the speed of light.

Your little space ship drawing doesn't explain how the ship manages to be compromised of no mass which it would need to to travel at the speed of light forget faster. How does it stretch spacetime without having mass? How does stretching spacetime propel something on it's surface? Waves are not made by stretching things.

Lol @ stretching space and time

 

[Andy Capp]

Lol @ stretching space and time

LOL @ you having a single clue what you're talking about.

 

[helltoupee]

This would be reasonable if we could verify that we've been visited by tens of thousands of spacecraft, the odd one of which here and there has some kind of massive operational failure. But surely if they were that common we'd have all seen them by now, right? It's the bigfoot argument all over again and I see no logic to contradict it in either case, sadly.

Certainly agree with you. The problem is that the discussion is all theoretical, and we have no idea that IF aliens are coming to earth with advanced technology, that we would see them all the time. Maybe they are and we just don't know it, so it would be very hard to make the analogy that the ratio of crashed craft vs not crashed craft comparative to something like modern airliners.

Further, as things become more advanced, there is a prevailing possibility that they are more prone to failure. A Tesla is much more advanced than a Model T, but that doesn't mean that a Tesla isn't prone to failure/issues. Theoretically, if we talking about propulsion systems that defy all of our understanding of physics, by nature we have no idea how sophisticated they might be, and how prone to fail they are.

All I was originally saying was that the idea that UFOs crash, should not logically preclude them from existing, based on the theory that they and their technologies must be absolutely perfect. I grew up loving muscle cars and used to wrench on them all the time. Took a lot of persuasion by my wife to get me to drive around in a more current vehicle. You know why? Because I hated the idea of conveniences and luxuries - such as power windows or power seats - to me, it's easy to just crank down a window and why have something more complicated that is just prone to failure. Don't know why I told you that, but our conversation made me think of that - ie, just because something might be more technically advanced, does not make it free from failure or error, and in a lot of cases being more advanced can actually make it more prone to problems.

As to bigfoot, I don't profess to really know much about it - I've been exposed to stories from tribal elders about so called bigfoot type creatures, but to me that's all they were, just stories that were likely embellished over time as an oral tradition implies. That's not to say that I don't find them intriguing, but I've never really steeped myself in those stories.

Believe it or not, I largely agree with your criticisms. But some part of me enjoys talking about things of a more theoretical and philosophical nature, which is why perhaps I remain curious about subjects like the paranormal, UFOs, bigfoot, etc.

 

[Fedora Millionankles]

I didn't know the terms but I was a dodgeball champ on the playground at my Catholic elementary school.

I bet you had to dodge a lot of balls at Catholic school, if you catch my drift. Mostly when alone with the priest during confession. lol

 

[dirtypablo]

Here's one that has to apply. They made it this far therefore their craft and ability to operate it had to be sound enough to make it this far--and that's a long fucking way for any alien--so there has to be a minimum standard of performance which would still only allow incidents like crashes to occur as frequently as they are supposed if there are many spacecraft coming here. The logic is sound.

Not really, its still rooted in a human based thinking about these crafts - that they're valuable, that a crash is a problem/failure and so on. The purpose of the craft might be to simply be a physical beacon attached to the planet, and thus it is supposed to crash - perhaps the intention is to even bury itself into the surface, or break apart on impact so that the contained elements can spread. Or, perhaps the crafts are completely disposable and once they arrive there, they do whatever was indented, then are considered trash.

Think of the amount of engineering that goes into making a plastic straw. You might dismiss it, but if you were to show a primitive society all the work that has gone into making a plastic straw, they would likely be blown away that we treat them as completely worthless and often toss them into the trash without even using them. Could be the same thing here - to a highly advanced civilization, an interstellar craft serves a trivial purpose, and once it has done that, it's trash.

Of course, there's no serious reason to consider we've actually recovered any crafts, but the idea that a craft couldn't crash here is firmly rooted in our thinking about these things from our very limited perspective.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

I'm not giving Curt whatever the fuck any clicks. What don't you get about that? Can you summarize what the dude is saying or not?

I don't mind at all that you won't listen.. I didn't ask you to and that wasn't the point. I already knew you wouldn't. You're a bad faith poster and you don't have an open mind about any of the things you mock.

The main thing I'm pointing out is you said those guys were randoms and Wolfgang Smith Noam Chomsky and a long host of others are not randoms...

Anyway, you have proven yourself to be a bad faith poster and I'm not interested in having those kinds of discussions.

 

[Blayt7hh]

Like I said I don't defend all of his statements but we have a good relationship and he has a keen awareness of a scientism the new religion and how it infects people's minds. Not sure if you're aware of this but there are scientists saying this too. It's not as if it's just friends UFO people.

You can bring up okamsrazor if you want, but as we can both readily admit it means nothing because it's not a law but also more importantly we don't have any data to base likelihood on!!! so it's just an appeal to some kind of authority.

But I think probability theory might have something to say about this. I have to ask myself what are the odds that there would be reports of UFOs across centuries, across cultures, across education levels and across demographics often sharing similar stories?... Thousands and thousands and thousands of accounts rolling in? I have to ask myself what I think explains that evidence?

There's just a few options. One is mistaken identity which is easily ruled out when you actually read the accounts and realize it wasn't just a glimpse of something that someone must took, but that many of the sightings are drawn out, have multiple witnesses and include multiple events... But there could also be hallucinations, but I find that to be ridiculously impossible for lots of reasons but especially when multiple witnesses see the same thing and some of those witnesses are not even in the same group... There's just no way I believe that that many people across centuries, cultures, age groups, and education levels are all hallucinating the same thing... It doesn't make sense. We probably wouldn't survive as a species if that were the case. In any case, I find that highly unlikely. Far less plausible than people are actually seeing something that we don't have a grasp on.

So it is absolutely reasonable and level headed to conclude that there's a very strong possibility that there really is a phenomenon happening that we don't have any idea about. There's nothing fringe about that way of thinking if you're taking in all of the data as I am.

What is it that they're seeing? well I can't say for sure... I have a pet theory but I don't claim for it to be the truth. I just keep an open mind about it, but if you take in all of the accounts and all of the evidence, and I have taken in hundreds and hundreds of accounts... that's my sample size.... Probably 500 to 1,000 accounts. The only thing that makes sense is they are actually seeing something there that we don't understand.


And that's what gets people hypothesizing about aliens from other planets interdimensional beings or mythological manifestations as carl jung clearly wrote about with this phenomenon. Personally, I am inclined to believe that we are witnessing the evolution of a global mythological phenomenon in the sense that jung meant it when he wrote of it. Personally, after reading hundreds and hundreds of accounts, that is the hypothesis that makes the most sense to me of the phenomenon, especially when you start realizing it has some similarities with paranormal accounts and even Bigfoot accounts and even accounts that go back centuries.


There are even groups of educated individuals. Some of them with PhDs in the sciences convinced that certain practices (rituals) performed can create an event where a sighting takes place... You find similar accounts from UFO people bigfoot's people and paranormal communities.

Now to me that sounds like the beginnings of pagan religion started over again after having slayed religion from our minds and beginning now anew in new forms.

But we must be clear about carl jungs theory on this... In no way does he believe this emerging mythology is a hallucination or a mass hallucination either. He believes there's a force that interacts with human consciousness that allows for mythological manifestations from our minds to manifest in physical reality. Carl Jung felt that was the best explanation for the phenomenon after actually looking into it deeply and also after having his own encounters with various unexplainable phenomenon.

Although the renowned quantum physicist Wolfgang Smith does not apply his theories of consciousness and quantum physics to the paranormal, he does apply them directly as an explanation for why various religious groups have manifestations of the same principle but with different forms.

All of this though just to say that mocking people who are into this kind of thing and interested is a fool's game. There are better minds than yours thinking deeply about these subjects and that's the kind of conversations I'm interested in having and used to listening to and engaging in.

I don’t have time to parse through al of this right now but the theory of probability does not say that at all, unless you accept that UFOs are real and are here.

Lots of people thought they saw Will o’ wisps. Lots of people thought they saw leprechauns. Lots of people thought they saw the Loch Ness monster.

 

[Renard]

Here's one that has to apply. They made it this far therefore their craft and ability to operate it had to be sound enough to make it this far--and that's a long fucking way for any alien--so there has to be a minimum standard of performance which would still only allow incidents like crashes to occur as frequently as they are supposed if there are many spacecraft coming here. The logic is sound.

You assume they physically traveled the galaxy, like in old school alien and UFO movies. That's not a very popular hypothesis these days. The whistleblower, Grusch, implied they were interdimensional. You're free to think it's hogwash, and I'm sure you do, but the fact of the matter is what you think is possible or not possible, ridiculous or not ridiculous, relies entirely upon the a priori assumptions you bring to the table. Just now you made an assumption, which could be wrong.

 

[helltoupee]

Not really, its still rooted in a human based thinking about these crafts - that they're valuable, that a crash is a problem/failure and so on. The purpose of the craft might be to simply be a physical beacon attached to the planet, and thus it is supposed to crash - perhaps the intention is to even bury itself into the surface, or break apart on impact so that the contained elements can spread. Or, perhaps the crafts are completely disposable and once they arrive there, they do whatever was indented, then are considered trash.

Think of the amount of engineering that goes into making a plastic straw. You might dismiss it, but if you were to show a primitive society all the work that has gone into making a plastic straw, they would likely be blown away that we treat them as completely worthless and often toss them into the trash without even using them. Could be the same thing here - to a highly advanced civilization, an interstellar craft serves a trivial purpose, and once it has done that, it's trash.

Of course, there's no serious reason to consider we've actually recovered any crafts, but the idea that a craft couldn't crash here is firmly rooted in our thinking about these things from our very limited perspective.

Thank you - @Renard and yourself put it much more eloquently than what I fumbled to explain. And yes, this is obviously all theoretical, I'm not here trying to convince anyone that little green men from Mars are visiting earth, only that the declarative that something cannot be technologically advanced because it has not reached human standards of absolute perfection does not appear logical to me.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

I don’t have time to parse through al of this right now but the theory of probability does not say that at all, unless you accept that UFOs are real and are here.

Lots of people thought they saw Will o’ wisps. Lots of people thought they saw leprechauns. Lots of people thought they saw the Loch Ness monster.

Cael Jung's theory accounts for all of those cultural manifestations of the same phenomenon just so you know.

Probability theorists have asked the question "what are the odds that nothing is behind millions and millions of accounts over thousands of years?" In this case they're talking about accounts of experience with God of course... What is more likely that nothing at all is happening or that something is happening? Probabilities kind of work out in favor of maybe there's something happening.


I'm just extrapolating that principle to the paranormal which I think UFO, Bigfoot, fairies, etc are all a part of as Carl Jung did. In fact, you can see commonalities from fairy lore with our paranormal accounts today.


But my case is not that I'm saying "this is what this phenomenon is". My argument is just really simple and much more basic and much more obvious to any honest actor. I'm saying that thinking about this phenomenon and believing it exists and wondering about it is not for fools or idiots and there is good justification to do so and many of the world's great thinkers agree.

More importantly, my position is that when people come mocking these things in the name of science, they are themselves being unscientific and hypocritical.

In threads like these, I'm almost completely uninterested in the outcome of the phenomenon itself. I'm interested in the emotionalism and the a priory biases and judgments that cloud peoples thinking and keep them from being able to reason honestly and openly about things like this. And I'm interested in the polarization that happens between two groups, both of whom seem to display a serious blind spot and yet seem clearly able to see the blind spot in the "other"

And this is another topic that is getting lots of attention by philosophers and thinkers today. Because this polarization is damaging humanity. It's damaging countries. It's damaging institutions. It's causing damage all over the place and both groups are responsible and that should be of interest to any person.

 

[Fedora Millionankles]

Lol @ stretching space and time

It’s spacetime. One word.
Do you always laugh out loud at things you can’t comprehend? Your life must be one big laugh session.

 

[shockaholic12]

Not really, its still rooted in a human based thinking about these crafts - that they're valuable, that a crash is a problem/failure and so on. The purpose of the craft might be to simply be a physical beacon attached to the planet, and thus it is supposed to crash - perhaps the intention is to even bury itself into the surface, or break apart on impact so that the contained elements can spread. Or, perhaps the crafts are completely disposable and once they arrive there, they do whatever was indented, then are considered trash.

Think of the amount of engineering that goes into making a plastic straw. You might dismiss it, but if you were to show a primitive society all the work that has gone into making a plastic straw, they would likely be blown away that we treat them as completely worthless and often toss them into the trash without even using them. Could be the same thing here - to a highly advanced civilization, an interstellar craft serves a trivial purpose, and once it has done that, it's trash.

Of course, there's no serious reason to consider we've actually recovered any crafts, but the idea that a craft couldn't crash here is firmly rooted in our thinking about these things from our very limited perspective.

You can make a straw by rolling up a leaf not sure it'd be that mind blowing.

If the intention is to send stuff to our planet to be found, why sneak around but then purposely crash stuff into the ground? You have mastered interdimensional travel, gravity, and mass but need a physical beacon on a planet? Figured that out but also just dump your shit?

They are like machine gods can't they just interstellar it back home? Or have it disintegrate?

The amount or logic you have to abandon to believe in space crafts with god-like powers either crash or get dumped in a ditch once they get here is too much to really entertain it as anything but silly. Sure it's possible, just doesn't make a lick of sense.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Lol @ stretching space and time

 

[helltoupee]

You can make a straw by rolling up a leaf not sure it'd be that mind blowing.

If the intention is to send stuff to our planet to be found, why sneak around but then purposely crash stuff into the ground? You have mastered interdimensional travel, gravity, and mass but need a physical beacon on a planet? Figured that out but also just dump your shit?

They are like machine gods can't they just interstellar it back home? Or have it disintegrate?

The amount or logic you have to abandon to believe in space crafts with god-like powers either crash or get dumped in a ditch once they get here is too much to really entertain it as anything but silly. Sure it's possible, just doesn't make a lick of sense.

Just because you don't understand something, theoretically has no bearing on whether they exist or not. And I'm certainly not trying to pretend that I or anyone else has all the answers.

A dog, or an insect, has no idea about human motives, or technologies. That doesn't make humans non existent. Likewise because these types of subjects leave you with so many unanswered questions, that in itself does not make them any less valid, theoretically of course.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

You assume they physically traveled the galaxy, like in old school alien and UFO movies. That's not a very popular hypothesis these days. The whistleblower, Grusch, implied they were interdimensional. You're free to think it's hogwash, and I'm sure you do, but the fact of the matter is what you think is possible or not possible, ridiculous or not ridiculous, relies entirely upon the a priori assumptions you bring to the table. Just now you made an assumption, which could be wrong.

So this is more like Buckaroo Banzai?

 

[shockaholic12]

You assume they physically traveled the galaxy, like in old school alien and UFO movies. That's not a very popular hypothesis these days. The whistleblower, Grusch, implied they were interdimensional. You're free to think it's hogwash, and I'm sure you do, but the fact of the matter is what you think is possible or not possible, ridiculous or not ridiculous, relies entirely upon the a priori assumptions you bring to the table. Just now you made an assumption, which could be wrong.

If they have transcended physical travel I'm sure they can avoid running into the ground.

 

[Andy Capp]

Sigh. This thread. LOL

Cael Jung's theory accounts for all of those cultural manifestations of the same phenomenon just so you know.

Probability theorists have asked the question "what are the odds that nothing is behind millions and millions of accounts over thousands of years?" In this case they're talking about accounts of experience with God of course... What is more likely that nothing at all is happening or that something is happening? Probabilities kind of work out in favor of maybe there's something happening.


I'm just extrapolating that principle to the paranormal which I think UFO, Bigfoot, fairies, etc are all a part of as Carl Jung did. In fact, you can see commonalities from fairy lore with our paranormal accounts today.


But my case is not that I'm saying "this is what this phenomenon is". My argument is just really simple and much more basic and much more obvious to any honest actor. I'm saying that thinking about this phenomenon and believing it exists and wondering about it is not for fools or idiots and there is good justification to do so and many of the world's great thinkers agree.

More importantly, my position is that when people come mocking these things in the name of science, they are themselves being unscientific and hypocritical.

In threads like these, I'm almost completely uninterested in the outcome of the phenomenon itself. I'm interested in the emotionalism and the a priory biases and judgments that cloud peoples thinking and keep them from being able to reason honestly and openly about things like this. And I'm interested in the polarization that happens between two groups, both of whom seem to display a serious blind spot and yet seem clearly able to see the blind spot in the "other"

And this is another topic that is getting lots of attention by philosophers and thinkers today. Because this polarization is damaging humanity. It's damaging countries. It's damaging institutions. It's causing damage all over the place and both groups are responsible and that should be of interest to any person.

lol yes and I'm sure this theory is strongly backed by empirical observation.


And you say I post in bad faith? No, I just don't suffer fools. I mock these things for lack of empirical evidence. Lets see some empirical basis for this "theory" and you'll get a reasoned discussion. As it is you're just telling people if they don't accept these made up ghosts as possible they can't discuss any issue in good faith. Good luck with that.