|
Lenny,
There was no personal attack.
You stated things emphatically without proof, evidence or rationale for these "beliefs" you express seemingly affirmatively.
My words were directed at your unsopported belief voiced by you without supporte. My words were pointed because, given your own vehemence it was clear i was assailing a personal paradigm; one abodpted by you because you would rather believe that what you know is..truly all there is.
You hold yourself forth as an investigator, yet i have seen you reference nothing but accountings of others in books and publications. I am a geologist. I too, as a scientist am an investigator. You say these "UFO's are not from another world. I find such a statement to disagree with "Occam's Razor" but then i base my resolve of what lies within the bounds of what is "reasonable" to extrapolate to without creating "new concepts" on more htan you yourself do.
Specifically, i haave been investigating Mars for over 2 years now, through analysis of the NASA Image and specificialy in in depth review ofo the Mars Global Surveyor satellite imagery. I have posted some of my findings here over time. I believe the tangible image evidence shows a presence on Mars, a presence that is in some locales current and immediate. I do doubt seriously that this presence on mars could be "US". Furthermore, my own research on my own and through others works have led me to a "understanding" of our own past that indicates we've had ancient interactions with "others" that has shaped our cultures and sociologic growth, thought and institutions.
I think there is a growing overwhelming mass of evidence of a current nature, these including NASA life space missions films and images, including the shuttle missions and also Mars rebotic investigative results.
I believe NASA's own study in 1959 undertaken by the Brookings Institute and known as the "Brookings Report", done proir to our entry into space, provides thorough reasons why these encounters and evidences are not readily recognized and discussed in the public domain.
I think any other evaluation of "the data" at hand is dismissing far too much compelling evidence without reasonable cause to do so.
My point in directing myself at your commentary was 1) your emphatically expresed belief, as if your opinion were reasoned and 2) your having given this opinion, de facto, without any rationale for such a belief.
If you are merely going to express a belief, that's fine, but couching it in language to make it appear "reasoned" without any coherent rationale is a subtle yet dishonest representation.
|
