Re: The Scientific Process (response) I already did


Message posted by Aaron Johnson on July 07, 2004 at 11:34:55 PST:

STATEMENT:
Could you give me such an explanation, no matter how unbelievable it would be?

ANSWER:
I already did give you an example, art's parts, sir you need to do some homework on art's parts ie research etc. which could also be considered from a general point of view, the scientific process or method.

STATEMENT
UFO research community's methods are not scientific and did not give any practical results for half a century.

ANSWER:
Well when scientific types do not want help out, what do you expect and still is a problem even presently.

STATEMENT:
"conspiracy theorists" and "believers" are doing massive harm to those, who try to study phenomenon scientifically.

ANSWER:
Like at Roswell how can the good researchers do anything more when all the good stuff is either at wright patterson or possible area51 many reported sightings of higly manuverable craft suggest as such and what do you expect, when the powers that be don't wanna share ;-)

Not too mention the fact that poor airforce major that had too make that report on roswell case closed. In which he was asked by a somebody, What about the three bodies recovered from the crashed saucer?. His response was, it was dummies that were parachuted out the back of a cargo plane, time compression son! people tend to forget things, time compression.

Time compression my &^% and what bunch of ^%$#^&* oh I very distinctly remember that one, with a vengence, it really ticked me off and that's when I became familiar with the word, PSYOP!. Is it any wonder that conspiracy researchers are left too do the dirty work, when the powers that be, wanna play hardball.

AD INEXPLORATA
Aaron J.


In Reply to: Re: The Scientific Process (response) posted by Boris Maryshev on July 07, 2004 at 4:07:10 PST:

Replies:



[ Discussion Forum Index ] [ FAQ ]