Lachezar Filipov, deputy director of the Space Research Institute of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, has confirmed research into aliens.  We know of astronaut Mitchell’s claims and of Area 51 and Rosswell.

My interest is not so much in the aliens themselves but in human reaction to them.  It’s a good catalyst to bring this into a discussion and see people’s preconceived ideas.  I’m sceptical about many things, most particularly government spin but on things we know nothing of – who knows?

Put it another way – why not?

I would postulate that a person who answers that with a guffaw or a, “Well it’s ridiculous, we know there are not,” is more credulous than I am.  Because this person will believe anything told him which is sceptical in nature.  In fact, this is relied on by the forces at work in:

… this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America … [Churchill, 1920] …

and is why, for example, many people don’t believe Common Purpose exists, even though it receives government funding.  Just an example like.

This is the sort of closed-minded fool that is usually trotted out in these situations and his stock in trade is to invite the audience to mock along with him.  He pours scorn and proceeds as if from some knowledge base but the truth is – behind the authoritative manner … he has no knowledge base:

He doesn’t know, I don’t know.

We’ve all heard that old chestnut, the Doubting Thomas: “Well, I’m a rationalist. I only believe something if it is documented for me and signed by three scientists, countersigned by the aliens themselves.”

The archaeological method of finding a bone fragment and constructing an entire species from that, together with its diet and mating habits does not seem to worry him any because that comes from “Scientists” and everything a “Scientist” says can be believed 100% right? Climate change for example.

I contend that I’m far more rational than these people ever will be because I reason that there is no cogent reason why much of this would not exist. Reason presupposes that one will meet any contention with equal reticence and proceed from there.

The man in the video mentions all those worlds out there and that there is likely to be one not unlike Earth.

So? Why not? And why not life forms, even amoeba, from there?

David Icke mentions lizards and that’s getting a little close to home and a little too much to bear. The Royal family are great lizards? Why not? If you are an ardent Royalist, you’ll snort with contempt but on which evidence do you snort?

I mean, if you truly love the scientific method, then on what basis do you reject the theory? I mean, how do you know authoritatively that 5000 years ago the giants didn’t walk the earth? I want to see your evidence for that.

The Brazilian COMDA report stated:

Based on the analysis of above-reported events, it is this Command’s opinion that, according to the information from the controllers, pilots and previously elaborated reports from I Cindacta (Air Traffic Control and Aerial Defense Center), that there are some points of coincidence regarding radar echoes, accelerations, illumination, velocities and behavior, either by technical detection or by visual contact.

What of this one?

If you ask me what I believe, then that is an entirely different question. Then the question becomes, “On what basis do I believe?”

I contend that the biggest problem in this discussion is not scepticism, which some call healthy but blind scepticism, which is every bit as bad as blind faith.

Filed under: Life issues & people