Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by montgomery

  1. The existing thread title is in appropriate for a serious discussion and so a new thread for those who would prefer to be serious about the topic. If we can't rely on these two for valuable positions on aliens and UFO's, then who can we rely upon. Their opinions on aliens being quite different from the human form is stronger than their beliefs on there being similarities. But neither of them are willing to put down the possibility of the aliens showing a likeness to humans. Dawkins leans at least somewhat to the possibility of likeness to the human form but not as strongly
  2. I've noticed that you seem to have to make the point that I'm not perfect! That's proof enough for me that you're starting to think about your reputation and starting to hear footsteps behind you, so to speak. But then just when I hear you start to indicate that you're aware of your weird behaviour, you go off on a flurry of absolutely madhatter posts with videos of wingnuts like Campione. Have you even watched what crap he's trying to push yourself? A friendly word or two of advice: Icke and Campione aren't good for you. And it's not like you haven't been warned enough about Icky!
  3. What are you trying to say? I'll change it to 'observe' for your sake so you can explain further. As for it being something between your eyes and Mars, that would be remotely possible but the possibility of it happening twice makes it almost infinitely impossible. I think you can throw that explanation out. Do you wear glasses? Were you using binoculars or a telescope the first time or both times? Do you find it a little unusual that you've witnessed a phenomenon twice which hasn't been seen by anybody else, and especially not astronomers? Can we put this to bed by coming up with a
  4. On several different ocassions while in Mexico I have observed Iguanas sitting out in conspicuous public places. They have given me an uncomfortable feeling that they are watching me especially. For this reason Thoth, we may have something in common with your feeling on lizard people.
  5. Thoths' video because the forum's system wants me to post it and won't allow me to delete it.
  6. [quote], if bacteria caused disease, everyone receiving their first vaccination would expire within 24 hours of inoculation. [/quote] How can anybody possibly reason with that? The real value in that post by Thoth is in it serving as an indication of how much his mental illness is tainting his ability to think logically.
  7. If the Biden family has deals with China that's good news. But I suspect that relations with China will be more positive under a Trump regime. Trump's a businessman, even though he's a failed one. His first priority will always be to the wealthy and so promoting better trade relations with China will always be more important than trying to bring back industry to the US. And besides, there's really no way that can be done anymore. The US is far, far from being able to compete with China. China is likely taking a position in which the US becomes excluded from trade relations with the
  8. So Corona virus is all a big hoax again? The two following videos you tried to post don't exist. But these words you posted above the second one has me very interested: "A population management story?" It must be about population control with Corona virus, even though it doesn't exist?
  9. The answer to the first question is '0'. There's not enough information provided to answer the 2nd. question but I can fix it for you. How many miles between two 6 foot tall people for them to see each other's heads if atmospheric conditions for viewing are perfect? 6 miles Bonus question: What kind of an a-s would want to invent a tail on Mars that can be seen by him and his daddy? Twice!
  10. Strange that you so far appear to be the only one on our planet to report a tail on Mars! And you've seen it twice! Have you and your daddy been out travelling behind Mars again? Let it go kid, you're making an *** of yourself.
  11. After posting that absolutely batshit crazy drivel by Campione, you have a lot of nerve even showing up again on this forum. You are one sick little man Thoth. Are you even aware of the kind of loony tunes you dare to put your name to?
  12. No, it's cleared up because you had to for some reason. Why did you try to get it past me to begin with? Yes, the aliens in 'Close Encounters' could be based on reported sightings. And that calls for a bit of an investigation on the question to determine if it's the other way around. So why do you insist on dying on that hill? Sorry I have to keep pursuing this with you A-wal but you're the best I've got here on this board. Do you think I'm thick? I don't mind, I'll be whatever you like. I'm somewhat worried about your personality too but I'm not going to get into any heavy insults
  13. I'm simply not going to waste my time with another video until you can say you understand my position on UFO's and aliens in them. First of all, do you understand what Nov.77 means? Dohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
  14. Excellent Thoth! Why wouldn't I watch at least a few minutes of a video that makes my case so well? You ignorant clumsy wacko! I doubt you even understand my position on UFO's and the aliens.
  15. Excellent Thoth!! So even though you have left the 'alien's appearance behind and turned to their vehicles, you have made my case with this video better than any I've found so far. I only watched the first 5 minutes but I'm sure it continues to make my argument even more thoroughly! I URGE EVERYBODY TO WATCH AS MUCH OF IT AS THEY CAN STAND! Every last one of the depictions of their space craft differ from that which become accepted after the 'Close Encounters' movie of Nov.77. So even though you're too stupid to be able to understand the topic and my argument, you've stumbled y
  16. I would be delighted if anchovy became your friend and fellow sympathizer. You would have an ally and then you would lose all caution and really spill it out. Right now you're much less fun as paranoia is setting in. Remember the comma?
  17. That's about what one would expect out of wingnut like Icky David.
  18. A-wal, thanks for cleaning up the kid's theory on Mars. You could have been quicker and more foreceful but at least it's done. On the appearance of the aliens, you've become stubborn now and so you can't bear to admit that all the little spacemen being sighted are carbon copies of the ones shown on 'Close Encounters'. And yes, I know believing in aliens and extraestrials is very popular but some rational thinkers can at least doubt where there is a lack of reliable evidence.
  19. Follow along with your finger. I don't have the time or patience to update those who can't pay attention. Oh, wait! You have been paying attention because now you are saying I'm like Thoth. You're just pretending to not know what I've presented as evidence.
  20. Don't just make accusations when you can provide the evidence to refute that which I've asserted on the appearance of aliens prior to nov. 77. Who would have ever thought this was such an emotional issue to you people? I need to do some thinking on why that is?
  21. A contribution of a sort for the pro-aliens side. https://qz.com/1019806/a-stressed-sleep-deprived-couple-accidentally-invented-the-modern-alien-abduction-phenomenon/ The lead photo for the story most likely can't be of use for a depiction of an alien in the 60's because it's not being claimed to be that which was sighted. That which 'was' claimed to have been sighted, we are led to believe, is "short people with wraparound eyes". I have to suggest that by itself it doesn't make the case for a lookalike of the 'Close Encounters' appearance of aliens. Mor evidence is require
  22. Again, the depictions of aliens in Close Encounters weren't based on any supposed sightings. But again I invite you to show they were. I'm making an assumption that it's the other way around. Don't pretend you don't understand that. My link of the 50's/60's aliens wasn't as good as I would have liked but surely you can find something better. That can be something better for the sake of either side of the debate. You may indeed find something to show that there were skinny, big headed, and almond eyed aliens shown in the 50's/60's? Thoth isn't weird for his belief in UFO's, and as y
  23. I'm being as thorough as I can be on the UFO topic, considering that it's not easy to present a lot of evidence against them. But nobody is really taking it upon themselves to present any pro-side either. I'm in no way confused about what a supernatural explanation means. I hold that a supernatural explanation is impossible by definition, but keeping in mind that a supernatural definition is only that until it can be shown to be natural.. Can you tell me why you are acting so resentful of the fact (so far a fact) that aliens didn't look at all similar to the 'Close Encounters' versio
  24. Thoth is a fkn weird nutcase and everybody on this board knows it. The link I posted showed depictions of aliens in the 50's and 60's and they weren't similar to the reported aliens after the movie, Close Encounters, which started the ras hos alien sighting of skinny little guys with big heads and almond eyes. Are there pictures of that sort of alien prior to November 77? There might be! You might want to see if you can find some?
  25. If you don't know if the magnetotail would be seen from a distance then why did you invent that conspriacy theory? Face it, the kid embellished his story about Mars the first time and then told the same lie the second time, which just happened to be the time when he needed to reinforce the nonsense. Look A-wal, Mars is very bright in the night sky right now and that all there is to it! The best your comments are going to do for you is just show that you're into supernatural imaginings when natural explanations will do fine. I'll now be able to use that against you on the UFO debate.
  • Create New...