Re: 283 aliens here

On 5/17/25 16:34, Andrew W wrote:

"Bobbie Sellers"  wrote in message news:100ah56$fsq2$1@dont-email.me...

>
>
>
On 5/16/25 19:19, Andrew W wrote:

"Mitchell Holman"  wrote in message news:XnsB2E1D39845498629555@185.151.15.190...

>
"Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in
news:1008hi7$fig$1@dont-email.me:
>

"Mitchell Holman"  wrote in message
news:XnsB2E1844A41583629555@185.151.15.160...

>
Malte Runz <nobodys@busine.ss> wrote in
news:d2se2kd3522ql7j97e64e3upbh2snqj4pg@4ax.com:
>

On Fri, 16 May 2025 12:16:47 +1000, "Andrew W" <space@defense.com>
wrote:
>

"Mitchell Holman"  wrote in message
news:XnsB2E0D047FD4F5629555@185.151.15.160...

>
"Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in
news:1005t7r$3cnf6$1@dont-email.me:
>

"Mitchell Holman"  wrote in message
news:XnsB2E04EFADAAA0629555@185.151.15.190...

>

>
  Has that happened since the discovery
of hundreds of exoplanets?
>

>
Discovery of exoplanets is only the first step. They're still not
telling the people the important details like the earth's true
history and who/what else is in this galaxy.

>
I take it that you know many of the details. You know Earth's true
history and a lot of other facts about what goes on in this galaxy.
>
But instead of sharing that information, and your sources, with us,
you'll spend post after post coming up with excuses for not doing
it.
>
'You're too lazy to do your own research.' 'I can't list all the
information I've spent decades finding.' 'The deep state has
destroyed the evidence.' 'You only believe MSM.' 'You're mind
controlled by the elites.' 'Why do you even need evidence?'
>
On and on it goes. We been through this many times before, so unless
you have some new material, I'll suggest you go fuck yourself. Cool?

>
>
>
   It is depressing there are so many
conspiracy-behind-everything kooks like
him.  Their lives re so unremarkable and
enpty they invent a "special knowledge"
they think elevates them above everyone
else.
>

>
But scientists never invent new theories to become prominent and get
government grants?

>
>
   You know that scientific grant requests
get previewed by other scientists, no?
>

>
And they are more trustworthy and have nothing to gain? It's basically a club.

>
A very internally competitive club where the scientists try to find flaws in
data, its acquistion, and the logic usually mathematical to reject the new
theories.  What they have to gain is the sharing of possibly accurate data
and ideas.  Generally until an experiment or data acquistion mode is tested
in another laboratory it is not considered proven or the theory relating to
it is considered for acceptance.
>

 Yes that does happen, but what also happens is the establishments deride and suppress discoveries that would ruin their narratives.
Much of the science debates that go on are also to distract the masses and muddy the waters.
 

>
Yes it takes years to gain the skills necessary for scientific and/or technological
research to be done but you would not be sitting whereever you are and
typ[ng into your computer if poeple did not no devote themselves to such
studies.  I will remind you or inform you if you did not know that when I
was young computers were mostly human beings who devoted themselves
to mathematics.
>
Computers then became gigantic electrical machines then electronic
machines which materials reseach managed to reduce to much handier
sizes.  You are using the results of scientific research and many theoretical
changes to communicate so yoiu should consider that seriously when
you come off with your half-baked ideas about science and scientists.
>

 The establishments allowed computer tech, television tech etc., basically entertainment, mainly to occupy people with crap and video games. Busy people don't ask questions. Governments hate questions.
 

>

Every ten years or so they throw out most of their theories and make
up new ones. But you still trust them that only they have the 'facts'.
>

>
   Bingo. That is where Nobel prizes come
from, disproving a previously held theory
with a new one, backed by evidence.
>

>
Thin evidence that's open to interpretation. But they get their money. And Nobel prizes are another motivation and fame generator.
>
>

>
We
thought the world was static, then we
discovered plate techtonics, we thought
the moon was dead, then we discoved
moonquakes, we thought gravity was just
attractive, then we discovered it can
repel things. Ain't science grand?
>

>
So mainstream scientists used to be really dumb. Now they're less dumb.
Many ancient people knew more about the stars as depicted in wall art than many later scientists.
>

>
The ancients built non-optical observatories to study the
heavens with the unaided eye.
But they had no idea of the nature of the Sun or of other stars as far
as we know.  Some figured out the Earth was more spherical than
flat but no great knowlege of the stars but the knowlege of their
observation.  Mostly they did observations to construct astrological
charts and to make sure of the Quarter-Days i.e. Eqinoxes and
Solstices.  Which is what a lot of ancient monuments were constructed
to determine.
>

 You don't know that. There is archaeological evidence that ancient humans were contacted by advanced ETs who imparted advanced celestial knowledge, including energy generation, healing tech etc.

More baloney.
Stonehenge and other ancient monuments as well as India's great
observatories are testaments to mankind's study of the heavens.  And it was
largely astrological study to determine propitious days for certain events.
If aliens had been informing them then they would certainly have had
surviving optical instruments.
bliss