Is it possible that one day we are going to wake up in the morning and there will be 10,000 UFOs in the skies?

[RedX]

Posted by Iceberg (here)
Most probable is the project bluebeam event. Its getting more real than ever.

Does anyone know if there is a thread here that dives into Project Bluebeam? A quick search here didn't produce anything that caught my eye.

[Michi]

I get 14 hits when doing the following:

[Joe from the Carolinas]

Posted by mindbend8r (here)
all around the world. Maybe one day just like any other day we wake up turn on the news and there are UFOs sitting in the sky all around the world. Being broadcast on TV all around the world.

Its impossible or is it?

Personal opinion- I am thinking this is an extremely low probability event. Possible? Sure! Worldwide uncontrolled disclosure of physical UFOs? This would be a major foul-up in terms of the .gov classification and air defense monitoring programs.

[petra]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by petra (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Some people forget that witness testimony is evidence. Its not "scientific" evidence, but certainly there is more than one type of evidence in the world in which to form basis of belief or even just understanding.

I wouldn't call testimony "evidence" of anything, mainly because our memories are flawed, but also because people can lie. When patterns begin to emerge - that's when the evidence starts to happen, imo

As for 10,000's of UFO's in the sky, I wouldn't be one bit surprised if they're already there and we just can't see them. Well not all of us anyway

It absolutely is evidence. Its not proof, mind you, and its reliability as evidence varies, as you pointed out, but it is evidence. Imagine all the court cases that would have to stop if we deemed witness testimony as non-evidence - the court systems would come to a grinding halt, and Bill Cosby would be a free man.

Evidence is something that lends credence to an idea. But is not proof on its own.
Proof is evidence that would be found by multiple supporting rationales that cannot reasonably be disputed. By that definition it is possible (but far less likely) for "proof" to be unreliable as well - and this is true.

I don't mean to me taking us in circles here, but hey, it's a great example of how language can be misunderstood. I should have said proof and not evidence.

I think I follow - Any amount of evidence cannot be proof on it's own, but proof is always considered to be evidence.

Proof should be reliable though really, especially if we're going to be convicting people with it, or using it to judge if there's 10,000 aliens in the sky or not.

[Sunny-side-up]

Not sure who or where now? but someone in an interview once said something like this

'if you have the right kind of lens/filter (something like ultraviolet) you all of a sudden see that the sky is full of lights and craft, all the time'

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by petra (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by petra (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Some people forget that witness testimony is evidence. Its not "scientific" evidence, but certainly there is more than one type of evidence in the world in which to form basis of belief or even just understanding.

I wouldn't call testimony "evidence" of anything, mainly because our memories are flawed, but also because people can lie. When patterns begin to emerge - that's when the evidence starts to happen, imo

As for 10,000's of UFO's in the sky, I wouldn't be one bit surprised if they're already there and we just can't see them. Well not all of us anyway

It absolutely is evidence. Its not proof, mind you, and its reliability as evidence varies, as you pointed out, but it is evidence. Imagine all the court cases that would have to stop if we deemed witness testimony as non-evidence - the court systems would come to a grinding halt, and Bill Cosby would be a free man.

Evidence is something that lends credence to an idea. But is not proof on its own.
Proof is evidence that would be found by multiple supporting rationales that cannot reasonably be disputed. By that definition it is possible (but far less likely) for "proof" to be unreliable as well - and this is true.

I don't mean to me taking us in circles here, but hey, it's a great example of how language can be misunderstood. I should have said proof and not evidence.

I think I follow - Any amount of evidence cannot be proof on it's own, but proof is always considered to be evidence.

Proof should be reliable though really, especially if we're going to be convicting people with it, or using it to judge if there's 10,000 aliens in the sky or not.

Yes, there is a clear distinction between proof and evidence. Semantics are a bitch.

Consider that there is only one unit of measure that can persuade confidence - "Evidence" is that unit of measure. Evidence can be good, and it can be poor. It encompasses the entire range from barely supporting an idea by lending only a small amount of confidence to the idea, to fully supporting an idea 100% and providing strong rationale. A single piece of evidence, in some cases, would qualify as "proof".

Proof is a concept, whereas evidence is the actual thing that lends confidence to an idea. When you have enough quality evidence that leads one to having near 100% confidence in an idea, then it can be said that we have "proof", but note that the proof is a conceptual result of the conclusion that all the evidence can give near 100% confidence to the idea. So in a sense yes, proof (the concept) is born from evidence (the "thing").

Proof can be wrong, because evidence can be misleading or wrong or insufficient, without the evaluator realizing this -- you can't know what you don't know. The evidence that lends to the idea that the universe revolves around the earth, was once considered to be "proof", that this was true ... all you had to do was look at the sky and see the entire universe - sun, moon, stars, planets, galaxies, revolving around the earth. No one considered that it might be the earth revolving, because at the time there was no standalone evidence to indicate that this was so. The evaluators didn't know to consider that the earth is spinning; they didn't know what they didn't know, hence, they had "proof" the universe revolved around the earth as there was no evidence at the time to refute this "proof".

Of course we have learned a lot since then, in fact, we are always finding that what we once considered as proof for things often pan out to not be true, because we are constantly learning new things and getting greater understanding of things that clarify our view of the world -- this process never stops.

In 500 years from now, I bet people are going to look back and be amazed at all the "bull****" that we believe currently to be true, and even have "proof" of, but will be rendered incorrect on the gaining of new knowledge and new understanding.

Because of this, I am always amazed at human arrogance, and the way we lay down "facts" and "knowledge" like they were cast in stone by God himself, without ever leaving room for the expanse of things we don't know that we don't know. It is actually a major fallacy, and destroys the innocent imagination we were allowed to exercise as children.


All that said, there is no good evidence that I am aware of that suggests that we will see 10,000 UFOs in the sky one day ... but there also doesn't need to be evidence that something will occur in order for it to occur.

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Sunny-side-up (here)
Not sure who or where now? but someone in an interview once said something like this

'if you have the right kind of lens/filter (something like ultraviolet) you all of a sudden see that the sky is full of lights and craft, all the time'

It would have to some sort of "top secret" new fan-dangled technology in those lenses. I have cameras, and filters for my lenses - some pretty cool ones like polarizing and UV filters. I've never photographed any UFOs ...

They say though, if you take a photograph of the sun, Nibiru will reveal itself disguised as a lens flare!

[Ratszinger]

Posted by mindbend8r (here)
all around the world. Maybe one day just like any other day we wake up turn on the news and there are UFOs sitting in the sky all around the world. Being broadcast on TV all around the world.

Its impossible or is it?

I think one day everyone will wake up and suddenly realize they are plugged into everyone else and a machine and connected real time to a real life monkey on their back only this one will be there 24/7 monitoring all of your daily life waking and sleeping. Big brother will be over everyone's shoulder! Being plugged in you'll be given a chore list daily and if you are too lazy to get out of bed the AI will motivate you with a jolt or a craving or some pain or one of any other control tools to make you do what it wants. You are not human now you are a BORG controlled by the machine, monitored by the machine and no doubt when it's done with you terminated by that same machine!
Go to the kitchen to eat and try to grab the salt the AI takes over and prevents you from grabbing the salt and a little voice goes off in your head saying "Sodium levels and blood pressure high, salt denied" and then if that isn't enough you go to the store to buy bacon and eggs and the AI prohibits those from being sold to you because you are also too high in cholesterol and fat! So you can't even buy what you want, or eat what you want, and it's just a matter of time before the AI starts selecting mates to breed you the way it wants over anything you want and I'm sure like all other neuronal functions if you won't cooperate it will force you to do that also.

I suspect the AI will keep some 'emotional beings' handy for the event that they meet another race of aliens they need to better understand but other than needing a few humans for emotional value and input they can provide that the machine cannot relate to I see no reason to believe the AI would leave a large number of us around because it'd be so far above us in short order we'd be seen as disposable and a general pest. Could it be UFOs that dropped micro bots in everyone to take over individual body functions while seeing life from your point of view awareness? I suppose it could be but my guess is it's a doctor EVIL right here that is very human.

[petra]

"you can't know what you don't know" is making me laugh! Ain't that the truth

I have a personal kind of issue which causes me to not want to judge anything, and when you start refusing to judge things, proof/evidence becomes kind of irrelevant. That's MY issue, and I'd like to apologize for confusing things.
Judging is difficult for me and I'd rather not have to judge anything ever again, if possible. And yes.. including Bill Cosby.. *cough*

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
All that said, there is no good evidence that I am aware of that suggests that we will see 10,000 UFOs in the sky one day ... but there also doesn't need to be evidence that something will occur in order for it to occur.

In my mind there's oodles of evidence to suggest this will NOT happen.
Maybe it will though, never know. I suppose they could change their minds.

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by petra (here)
"you can't know what you don't know" is making me laugh! Ain't that the truth

I have a personal kind of issue which causes me to not want to judge anything, and when you start refusing to judge things, proof/evidence becomes kind of irrelevant. That's MY issue, and I'd like to apologize for confusing things.
Judging is difficult for me and I'd rather not have to judge anything ever again, if possible. And yes.. including Bill Cosby.. *cough*
...

Consider the use of "distinctions" to know where it might be appropriate to apply judgement or not.

I don't like judging people much, I'd prefer to just be honest with them if something is bothering me or just not think negatively about them at all. One could make the distinction that you can apply "judgement" to people, and events/objects, differently.

Also a judgement doesn't have to be a bout good vs bad, right vs wrong, etc. We seem to think this is somehow required, but it is not at all. You could use the distinction between moral judgements, considerations, and "humourment" to apply where appropriate.

A "consideration" can be powerful, it requires no commitment so it allows full freedom of exploration, and you can dump it at any moment, or, you can turn it into a belief if you want. I find the less I believe, and the more I consider, the more quickly I can work through concepts and ideas to determine what their value is and where. Considerations also allow you to easily explore where dots might connect. Beliefs are rather rigid.

So in conclusion between this and my post on evidence vs proof ...

Believe nothing, Consider everything.

[petra]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
Believe nothing, Consider everything.

Great conclusion! Reminds me of the "believe nothing you see, and only 1/2 of what you hear"

EDIT: I got the quote backwards but what ever, doesn't matter!

[Sunny-side-up]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by Sunny-side-up (here)
Not sure who or where now? but someone in an interview once said something like this

'if you have the right kind of lens/filter (something like ultraviolet) you all of a sudden see that the sky is full of lights and craft, all the time'

It would have to some sort of "top secret" new fan-dangled technology in those lenses. I have cameras, and filters for my lenses - some pretty cool ones like polarizing and UV filters. I've never photographed any UFOs ...

They say though, if you take a photograph of the sun, Nibiru will reveal itself disguised as a lens flare!

Hi DeDukshyn, found the info I mentioned, posted here:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...59#post1273759

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Sunny-side-up (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by Sunny-side-up (here)
Not sure who or where now? but someone in an interview once said something like this

'if you have the right kind of lens/filter (something like ultraviolet) you all of a sudden see that the sky is full of lights and craft, all the time'

It would have to some sort of "top secret" new fan-dangled technology in those lenses. I have cameras, and filters for my lenses - some pretty cool ones like polarizing and UV filters. I've never photographed any UFOs ...

They say though, if you take a photograph of the sun, Nibiru will reveal itself disguised as a lens flare!

Hi DeDukshyn, found the info I mentioned, posted here:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...59#post1273759

Looks interesting ... long video tho ...

[Webz Libri]

Posted by mindbend8r (here)
all around the world. Maybe one day just like any other day we wake up turn on the news and there are UFOs sitting in the sky all around the world. Being broadcast on TV all around the world.

Its impossible or is it?

It's already happend... in the past.