What if the alien universe was terrified of humans?

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 186
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 6:22 pm

PostSun Jan 12, 2014 4:49 am » by theegle


Opalserpent wrote:Let willease have that one theeagle, he won't try to disprove the logic of my post.
We know nasa has airbushed in the past and are using algorithms so it is possible
other pictures are real but we can't get any evidence from anyone else besides nasa.

Willease is a hard ass The Eagle but he has beat you down with his stronger arguments.
He won't beat mine down however, well not often.

He isn't trying to debunk our knowledge that the moon images have been tampered with
in the past he is just showing that in this instance your crashed craft picture
is probably just a natural formation and he has supplied ample evidence.

He knows just like you the moon probably has stuff on it that nasa doesn't want us to see.

:cheers:




Thanks buddy .... and also thank you for it. I want to awaken the mind to the ancient lie of God and the angels from hell etc ... this is all a way to distract mankind not to know that we were invaded by aliens to 12,500.

Image

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos- ... 2886_n.jpg

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/image ... ZH_06a.jpg

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 8895
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 3:24 pm

PostSun Jan 12, 2014 5:21 am » by *WillEase*


theegle wrote:
Opalserpent wrote:Let willease have that one theeagle, he won't try to disprove the logic of my post.
We know nasa has airbushed in the past and are using algorithms so it is possible
other pictures are real but we can't get any evidence from anyone else besides nasa.

Willease is a hard ass The Eagle but he has beat you down with his stronger arguments.
He won't beat mine down however, well not often.

He isn't trying to debunk our knowledge that the moon images have been tampered with
in the past he is just showing that in this instance your crashed craft picture
is probably just a natural formation and he has supplied ample evidence.

He knows just like you the moon probably has stuff on it that nasa doesn't want us to see.

:cheers:




Thanks buddy .... and also thank you for it. I want to awaken the mind to the ancient lie of God and the angels from hell etc ... this is all a way to distract mankind not to know that we were invaded by aliens to 12,500.

Image

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos- ... 2886_n.jpg

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/image ... ZH_06a.jpg


Image

Fuck it, I give up. It's a crashed spaceship being covered up by NASA. Now go away.
Image

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2013 8:10 pm

PostSun Jan 12, 2014 8:00 am » by Just a thought


*WillEase* wrote:
theegle wrote:
Opalserpent wrote:Let willease have that one theeagle, he won't try to disprove the logic of my post.
We know nasa has airbushed in the past and are using algorithms so it is possible
other pictures are real but we can't get any evidence from anyone else besides nasa.

Willease is a hard ass The Eagle but he has beat you down with his stronger arguments.
He won't beat mine down however, well not often.

He isn't trying to debunk our knowledge that the moon images have been tampered with
in the past he is just showing that in this instance your crashed craft picture
is probably just a natural formation and he has supplied ample evidence.

He knows just like you the moon probably has stuff on it that nasa doesn't want us to see.

:cheers:




Thanks buddy .... and also thank you for it. I want to awaken the mind to the ancient lie of God and the angels from hell etc ... this is all a way to distract mankind not to know that we were invaded by aliens to 12,500.

Image

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos- ... 2886_n.jpg

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/image ... ZH_06a.jpg


Image

Fuck it, I give up. It's a crashed spaceship being covered up by NASA. Now go away.

Don’t give up so easily WillEase. I’m a great believer in debunking. At the end of the day there will be those things that no matter how hard you try to debunk you can’t. And those are the ones you tend to hold dear and near to you because those are the ones that are most likely true. But man you have to take a lot of crap from people who think debunkers are bad. And to them I say it’s the debunkers that will dig out the truth.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 8895
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 3:24 pm

PostSun Jan 12, 2014 8:46 am » by *WillEase*


Just a thought wrote:Don’t give up so easily WillEase. I’m a great believer in debunking. At the end of the day there will be those things that no matter how hard you try to debunk you can’t. And those are the ones you tend to hold dear and near to you because those are the ones that are most likely true. But man you have to take a lot of crap from people who think debunkers are bad. And to them I say it’s the debunkers that will dig out the truth.


I am the last person who will suggest NASA isn't aware of strange unexplainable anomalies. I have a thread
with hundreds of them...
space-anomalies-revisited-t84151.html

But this thread isn't about a supposed crashed spaceship on the moon. And I think I have done everything possible to prove that mound and trick of shadows isn't one.
Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2427
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:47 am

PostSun Jan 12, 2014 10:33 am » by Opalserpent


*WillEase* wrote:
Just a thought wrote:Don’t give up so easily WillEase. I’m a great believer in debunking. At the end of the day there will be those things that no matter how hard you try to debunk you can’t. And those are the ones you tend to hold dear and near to you because those are the ones that are most likely true. But man you have to take a lot of crap from people who think debunkers are bad. And to them I say it’s the debunkers that will dig out the truth.


I am the last person who will suggest NASA isn't aware of strange unexplainable anomalies. I have a thread
with hundreds of them...
space-anomalies-revisited-t84151.html

But this thread isn't about a supposed crashed spaceship on the moon. And I think I have done everything possible to prove that mound and trick of shadows isn't one.



Willease that was my quote, have you got me blocked or something man?
I agree, you got good threads already. :cheers:
Live by the Terror, Die by the Terror.

Conspirator
Posts: 1544
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:18 pm

PostSun Jan 12, 2014 5:53 pm » by Doogle


The57ironman wrote:
Doogle wrote:I would suggest they would be well advised to at least be weary of us.

I reckon that if they were more tech advanced than us, then they'd probably quarantine us. :wink:
Wait a minute....

.


...they probably are 'weary' of us.. :lol:



:cheers:


Ha! I am a penis. Was imbibing.

Wary of being weary I suppose.

Conspirator
Posts: 1544
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:18 pm

PostSun Jan 12, 2014 6:04 pm » by Doogle


Any way, I think it highly likely that some civilisations would be cautious about interacting with us and monitoring how close we are to infecting, sorry, I mean spreading into the universe.

Wouldn't bet against there being those that couldn't care less about us and see us as irrelevant and weak.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1246
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:55 am

PostSun Jan 12, 2014 6:13 pm » by Chaindrive


Maybe they relate to the Drake Equation, particularly this:


The lifetime of intelligent civilizations is short, meaning the value of "L" is small. Drake suggested that a large number of extraterrestrial civilizations would form, and he further speculated that the lack of evidence of such civilizations may be because technological civilizations tend to disappear rather quickly. Typical explanations include it is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself, it is the nature of intelligent life to destroy others, they tend to experience a technological singularity, and others.
Image

Conspirator
Posts: 1544
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:18 pm

PostSun Jan 12, 2014 6:17 pm » by Doogle


Just a thought wrote:
Don’t give up so easily WillEase. I’m a great believer in debunking. At the end of the day there will be those things that no matter how hard you try to debunk you can’t. And those are the ones you tend to hold dear and near to you because those are the ones that are most likely true. But man you have to take a lot of crap from people who think debunkers are bad. And to them I say it’s the debunkers that will dig out the truth.


To be fair J a T, you can only debunk something that is debunkable. Be careful saying you believe in debunking, it is close to admitting you would even try to debunk the truth and not ultimately dig out the truth, besides, debunking doesn't necessarily mean one is proving true or false, is can just as easily be used to muddy the waters; But I agree in so much that there needs to be counter arguments to claims of this, that and the other.

Lots of debunks there, sorry about that.

Conspirator
Posts: 1544
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:18 pm

PostSun Jan 12, 2014 6:28 pm » by Doogle


Chaindrive wrote: it is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself, it is the nature of intelligent life to destroy others, they tend to experience a technological singularity, and others.


I argued this point with someone recently and got told in no uncertain terms I was talking shit.

Sure, it is only Drake's opinion, but I also argued that a technologically advanced civilisation need not necessarily be particularly pleasant. But I'd imagine one would think that to be a sustained civilisation, then they would probably need to be ethically and, if you like, spiritually advanced also, to as much as anything, not destroy themselves let alone others. Of course, the possibility that a peaceful civilisation would be open to being conquered and/or destroyed is another consideration.

Ooopps, talking shit again I suppose.


Previous

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook