This French Fractale guy is just out to cause trouble here, I suggest that we sideline him.

I thought that had already been done. I suggest you sideline your persistent referencing to his nationality. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

This French Fractale guy is just out to cause trouble here, I suggest that we sideline him.

I thought that had already been done. I suggest you sideline your persistent referencing to his nationality. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

Yes especially as he hasn't posted in this thread in 10 days.

---

I saw a documentary where they had these balls of light, and then how it was revealed that is was 100% trick photography. The people who actually made them, showed the camera how they did it. In the days of computers, photos, and even video can be manufactured with ease. Also look at a good magician, and see how easily people are fooled.

Science man steve the camra that was used is the old type not a video camra and was taken before computers where the norm back in the mid 80's

So not so easy to fake . But not impossible

---

Most likely the same story all over again.

The one about conspiracies, lies and so on.

Should such things be discussed, or should they rather be thought of as being not valid when it comes to contents and therefore should be thrown away?

Assumedly there always is a difference between traditional science and speculative science, I would like to add.

Looking at the photograph in the first message of this thread, I do not see any wrong with it.

Because you think something is either wrong, or is not possible to do, it is therefore not true.

The upper figure or symbol reminds me about the Arecibo message towards the globular cluster M13 back in 1974.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_message

No other resemblance, relationship, meaning or connection being inferred or intended when saying such a thing.

Looking at both pictures using IrfanView there may be some resemblance. The figure in the middle when it comes to the Arecibo message could be the same as the one in the picture, but the remaining part is harder to discern.

Either I will need to adjust the colors as well as resolution and possibly rotate the figure as well, but for now I do not get the desired result.

My guess is that there are some out there who are more clever than ourselves. Whether or not this is nature on its own, an intelligence other than us which is part of nature, or perhaps even something divine, it is not possible to tell.

For now it becomes yet another unsolved puzzle and perhaps a slight indication of someone perhaps telling us a story.

http://www.theanomalieschannel.com/archive/cni-news/CNI.0768.html

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

As far as I know, you are not supposed to be associating neither UFOs, orbs, rods or critters with possible intelligence.

In the same way, our current knowledge about numbers does not give a full explanation of the subject relating to intelligence either.

This reminds me about the old story about the randomize function being included in a programming language and the separate rand function in order to generate a random number.

Mentioned before, everyone knows that such a thing does not make any sense.

By the way, Chris S, I appreciate your post. I did not expect hearing such words coming from you.

We typically associate ourselves with the physical part of our body. The right part of our brain which makes us able to think, learn and dream sometimes makes us able to paint a picture.

If not doing so, you could rather build a car on your own with your hands and fingers.

If there should be other intelligent civilizations around, their presence should be revealed by the use of technology being used.

The best protected secrets in the world today are those which are related to energy and propulsion.

For this, the U.S. Department of Energy as well as the Jet Propulsion Laboratory could be good sources for public information.

Possibly we have been too busy thinking about nuclear fission, when in fact the way nature is creating energy is rather by means of fusion instead. In order to do so, immense pressure is needed. Because of that, we are regarding the sun as being a gaseous object, even though fusion is likely to take place only when this gas is pressurized into a metallic substance.

The same goes for propulsion. An object like a UFO may seem to be at almost a standstill in the sky, but probably could be moving at tremendous speed at times as well. Whether or not this is as a result of an engine, like a ramjet or pulse engine, or rather because of the properties of gravity or a gravity field, is very hard to tell.

Such technologies are currently being developed here on Earth and could very well be used by more developed civilizations than ourselves. Because other civilizations may be more developed than us, this also should be reflected by means of the intelligence such beings could be having.

Or, "we are thinking of the sun...".

Until any and all things can be proven as true or false, including but not limited to obtaining signals emitted from outside of our solar system, it seems only right to not discount the possibilities. To throw a tangent against another for expressing a possibility is by far a display of an over-active ego. Debate is one thing, but blatant disregard for someone's ponderings is down right nonconstructive. Personal attacks on grammar/spelling and the country of origin....really?

---

To throw a tangent

@Akio - I think you meant to type tantrum.

Says the man who typed sulect.

---

We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Apart from pain. And maybe humiliation. And obviously death. And failure. But apart from fear, pain and humiliation, failure and the unknown and death - we have nothing to fear. Who’s with me?

I rest my case.

Double standards weigh more than you think.

quod erat demonstrandum

quo errat demonstrator :-)

Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare.

Cicero I believe.
edit: per your favourite reference site :-) 3 January 106 BCE* – 7 December 43 BCE*

*brought up to date (for atheists and non-Christian faiths)

---

We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Apart from pain. And maybe humiliation. And obviously death. And failure. But apart from fear, pain and humiliation, failure and the unknown and death - we have nothing to fear. Who’s with me?

when someone says he's an Atheist & Agnostic...then you know who are you talking to...'cause one pretty much rules out the other!
:D

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

when someone says he's an Atheist & Agnostic...then you know who are you talking to...'cause one pretty much rules out the other!
:D

All atheists are agnostic and in the majority of cases all agnostics are atheist. One does not rule out the other, they are labels that attempt to define two different answers to the same question that can have two meanings.

here's something for you two to read, before posting more:
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Agnostic_vs_Atheist
they are quite different! ;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

here's something for you two to read, before posting more:
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Agnostic_vs_Atheist
they are quite different! ;)

Once again, they are quite the same depending on the question asked. If the question is: "Does God exist?", no one can know for certain. Not atheists. Not Believers. In that aspect, everyone is agnostic. But if the question is: "Do you believe in God?" Then nearly every agnostic is an atheist.

A label of agnostic answers the epistemological question that no one can answer. A label of atheist answers the philosophical question in the same.

An atheist can take the agnostic position when posed the former question, and take the atheist position when asked the latter. In fact, most agnostics tend to answer the same.

So no, they are quite similar. It is the question being asked that matters.

complicating it...why?

& why would you ask someone without religion "Do you believe in God?"...that's just plain stupid!

it's the question of "Does God exist?" or "Do you believe that God exists?", that's the main question...


like here also...we can believe or not believe in SETi (not a religion thing)...
but the main thing is: "Does SETi exists?"
;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

complicating it...why?

& why would you ask someone without religion "Do you believe in God?"...that's just plain stupid!

Both questions are equally valid to ask, regardless of your opinion, because both questions are very important to ask.

it's the question of "Does God exist?" or "Do you believe that God exists?", that's the main question...

'Does God exist?' is an empirical question that no one can answer. This is where everyone is agnostic because no one can prove or disprove (at this point) that God does or does not exist. However, the proof always falls to the one making the claim in the positive sense (i.e. that God exists).

'Do you believe God exists?' is merely a question of opinion, and the person answering isn't required to show proof for their claim, but everyone is entitled to ask for reasons backing either position. This is where most agnostics get it wrong in thinking that they must not waiver from the fence. If you question long enough, you are definitely atheist. You either do believe, or you do not believe that God exists. You can't have an answer of "well, maybe it does and maybe it doesn't" for too long. In fact, I would argue that there is no "on the fence" position to such a question.

like here also...we can believe or not believe in SETi (not a religion thing)...
but the main thing is: "Does SETi exists?"
;)

There's no question that the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence exists. We are searching right now. The question ultimately is: do intelligent lifeforms exist outside our planet? That's what we're all here to find out. And the definition of 'intelligent' is certainly open to discussion and debate.

but the main thing is: "Does SETi exists?"

Now you are just being childish. You logged onto the seti website to make that post .....

aren't we here, to answer this question?!

so you, can't rule out that possibility...it's a small one, but never the less - a possibility exists that we are alone!
;)

complicating it...why?

& why would you ask someone without religion "Do you believe in God?"...that's just plain stupid!

Both questions are equally valid to ask, regardless of your opinion, because both questions are very important to ask.

it's the question of "Does God exist?" or "Do you believe that God exists?", that's the main question...

'Does God exist?' is an empirical question that no one can answer. This is where everyone is agnostic because no one can prove or disprove (at this point) that God does or does not exist. However, the proof always falls to the one making the claim in the positive sense (i.e. that God exists).

'Do you believe God exists?' is merely a question of opinion, and the person answering isn't required to show proof for their claim, but everyone is entitled to ask for reasons backing either position. This is where most agnostics get it wrong in thinking that they must not waiver from the fence. If you question long enough, you are definitely atheist. You either do believe, or you do not believe that God exists. You can't have an answer of "well, maybe it does and maybe it doesn't" for too long. In fact, I would argue that there is no "on the fence" position to such a question.

like here also...we can believe or not believe in SETi (not a religion thing)...
but the main thing is: "Does SETi exists?"
;)

There's no question that the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence exists. We are searching right now. The question ultimately is: do intelligent lifeforms exist outside our planet? That's what we're all here to find out. And the definition of 'intelligent' is certainly open to discussion and debate.

well, I'm not sure that Atheist would even comprehend a "belief system"...so no, I wouldn't ask her/him that question...some people do get it, some people look at that question like a economist to differential equation with expression "I don't get it"!
so, that is why a straight forward question about existence of God is more comprehensible to wider masses...

well God does exists...& many people see it in all around themselves...some in nature...some in Space & physics of the Universe...some in small things...
many of those, don't even pray...but they do see that our Universe is not a coincidence! ;)

..

well odds are small...that we are alone! ;)

& about intelligence...sometimes I even question if there is intelligence on Earth, when I see people around me (not meant to you two, just some people around)...like in a film Idiocracy!
:D

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

well, I'm not sure that Atheist would even comprehend a "belief system"

Why do you believe atheists are unable to comprehend a belief system? This is starting to get off topic and may be best to move to a different thread altogether.

...so no, I wouldn't ask her/him that question...some people do get it, some people look at that question like a economist to differential equation with expression "I don't get it"!

Failure to ask a question because you believe someone doesn't get it would be a failure to introduce an important question to the person's thought processes. Or maybe they understand it better than you think and you've written them off because you don't agree with their answer. ;)

so, that is why a straight forward question about existence of God is more comprehensible to wider masses...

Both questions are straightforward. As I said, one asks an empirical question, the other asks for opinion of belief. What I've been trying to illustrate for you is that the moment you ask the more meaningful question of 'do you believe in God?', most every agnostic gives an atheistic answer, and hence are atheists whether they want to be labeled as such or not.

well God does exists

Such a statement puts you firmly in the believer camp, which is fine. I can't tell you if God exists or not (agnostic), but I see no reason to believe such a being exists (atheist), and I strongly suspect belief in a deity is nothing more than a fantasy (strong atheist).

well God does exists...& many people see it in all around themselves...some in nature...some in Space & physics of the Universe...some in small things...
many of those, don't even pray...but they do see that our Universe is not a coincidence!

You have no proof for any of that. You are just repeating other peoples opinions.

well, yes I do:
1. sexes - it's just not so wise to have sexual reproduction with individuals which have to have 2 individuates...evolution should have made that correction, like in some frogs & fishes...nope, hasn't arrived to humans or mammals!
2. species dependability - some species in flora & fauna are so dependable of one another, that it's evolutionary unwise to make that kind of dependability on other species (actually, from another family even)...
3. Fibonacci numbers - don't need to explain them!
4. universe constants - don't need to explain them!
5. Quantum field energy - don't need to explain them!
...
;)

well, I'm not sure that Atheist would even comprehend a "belief system"

Why do you believe atheists are unable to comprehend a belief system? This is starting to get off topic and may be best to move to a different thread altogether.

...so no, I wouldn't ask her/him that question...some people do get it, some people look at that question like a economist to differential equation with expression "I don't get it"!

Failure to ask a question because you believe someone doesn't get it would be a failure to introduce an important question to the person's thought processes. Or maybe they understand it better than you think and you've written them off because you don't agree with their answer. ;)

so, that is why a straight forward question about existence of God is more comprehensible to wider masses...

Both questions are straightforward. As I said, one asks an empirical question, the other asks for opinion of belief. What I've been trying to illustrate for you is that the moment you ask the more meaningful question of 'do you believe in God?', most every agnostic gives an atheistic answer, and hence are atheists whether they want to be labeled as such or not.

well God does exists

Such a statement puts you firmly in the believer camp, which is fine. I can't tell you if God exists or not (agnostic), but I see no reason to believe such a being exists (atheist), and I strongly suspect belief in a deity is nothing more than a fantasy (strong atheist).

well, if there aren't any difference in a comprehension of the question, while asking about same subject = then both answers would be the same!
as they are not, I can only assume from a psychology books & training, that the comprehension of the question is different (many types it is)...so don't take if offended, it's just as it is...I do respect that you don't have faith or belief - it's your life!
just that many Atheists don't have belief in some things...proof: when did you do something as a "leap of faith"? did somebody asked you to do something as a "leap of faith"?
;)

as stated before, I don't believe in God...I do know God exists!
you can call it Creator...Thor...or whatever it is!
why?
check the answer to some of the topics listed there...any they are only start of the big pile...the more we know, the more we know God exists...
even S.Hawking proved that God plays dice! so if God plays dice, God must exists...
;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

well, if there aren't any difference in a comprehension of the question, while asking about same subject = then both answers would be the same!

But there are differences in the question. Asking if God exists really isn't a meaningful question at all because no one can know for certain. A more meaningful question, one that would properly separate the believers from the non-believers (with no room in the middle), is if one believes God exists.

as they are not, I can only assume from a psychology books & training, that the comprehension of the question is different (many types it is)

Not really. It doesn't have much to do with the comprehension of the question. It has everything to do with identifying a more meaningful question if one really wants to place labels (faithful/non-faithful, atheist/agnostic/believer) on everything.

...so don't take if offended, it's just as it is...I do respect that you don't have faith or belief - it's your life!

I'm not offended at all. What I'm trying to communicate to you is a different way of understanding the foundational question, so that you understand that truly most agnostics are atheist. I think the label atheist carries a lot of negative connotations and stigma that, unfortunately, most agnostics shy away from the label unnecessarily. That is why asking a more meaningful question is so important.

just that many Atheists don't have belief in some things...proof: when did you do something as a "leap of faith"? did somebody asked you to do something as a "leap of faith"? ;)

I don't take leaps of faith. I take educated guesses which do not require faith at all.

the more we know, the more we know God exists...
even S.Hawking proved that God plays dice! so if God plays dice, God must exists...;)

I think this is an example of interpreting statements to suit your own world view. Dr. Hawking did not prove that God plays with dice. Neither did Einstein. When theoretical physicists and other scientists refer to God playing with dice, they're talking about probabilities of the Universe, random chance, and other unknowns.

Dr. Hawking has stated that a deity (God) isn't required to explain the existence of the Universe, and that caused a big kerfuffle when he said that. So no, Dr. Hawking did not say God exists at all. I'm pretty sure Dr. Hawking's position on God is much like that of any other atheist: we don't know if God exists, but few of us see any reason to believe in one.