Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Crop Circle Mystery Solved

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2009 12:53:09 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Crop Circles as explained by a Pleiadian named Alaje (believe it or not):

1)--99% of the crop circle Picktogramms are made from us with cosmic, electromagnetic energy.
The fields are not destroyed, but even improved.
The rest of 1% is made of negative people who want to fool other people.
They trample the fields so you can see that it is a fake. The stalks are bent and broken and the fields have no energy.

The real Picktogramms have Energy and 3 functions. Some are energetic stimulation for the earth (in the; videos, I said that, symbols have energy), some are messages for the humans, first to make them see that there are others in space too, and secondly there are messages that are understood more in the soul, to activate specific knowledge. And some icons are messages for other aliens.

2)--Those cropcircles who are messages for your Soul, have to do with sacred geometry. In the etheric plain, you can see geometric 3D figures everywhere out of Light who have encoded informations.

It is the language of the higher dimensions, too complex to understand with the rational_earth Mind. But your Soul can understand it. So you have to listen to your Soul, in order to understand the message within a symbol.
Everything has those strucktures in it. Your body, the planets, everything...
Those cropcircles are corresponding with the sacret geometry in your Energy Body, and are triggering; your awareness and sensitivity for the higher frequencies. The same is happening with the planet, too. It is like Acupuncture for the planet.

3)--The Symbols in crops are projected from the spacecraft or we send small telemeter discs or Lightballs stimulating with cosmic energy, the earth. It happens in seconds.

Sort of like when you print something with your printer. First it's only on the screen as; a graphic and then it is projected at specific points on the paper. For the picktogramms instead of ink, it is used cosmic energy that exists everywhere, as all things are made of this energy. I have been at dozens already in England and have eaten the seeds of it. You can feel the energy impact for days in your body and it activates the chakras.

4)--The Symbol in my videos has to do with sacret geometry that is everywhere around us and inside us.
This symbol is opening Dimensiongates , not only in the outside world, but also in the mind of the people.
So it is helping People to understand better the informations I am talking about in the Video, because they get in touch with there inner spirit, their Soul.

---------------------------

What he described has even been caught on camera, so what he is describing is accurate.

Thoughts?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2009 1:01:50 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/8/2009 12:53:09 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Thoughts?

You really don't want to know what my thoughts are....

I would like to see where Alaje's theories have been "observed." I would also like to know how any of this can be verified outside of "listening to your Soul," so that my "rational Earth_Mind" can contemplate what this f*ckery is.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2009 1:05:02 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
(Minute 2:12 has the actual footage.) A PhD physicist even examined the crop circle and proved that it was real.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2009 1:09:38 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I stopped when the lady said, "how about this feature: notice how the lights, when they're farther from the lens, do not become smaller."

Well, yeah, thats because its most likel a forgery.

Anything that moves over that vast of a difference will become smaller as it gets farther away from our view. That is a simple law of nature.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2009 1:16:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/8/2009 1:09:38 AM, Volkov wrote:
I stopped when the lady said, "how about this feature: notice how the lights, when they're farther from the lens, do not become smaller."

Well, yeah, thats because its most likel a forgery.

Anything that moves over that vast of a difference will become smaller as it gets farther away from our view. That is a simple law of nature.

Not true. It was a light. She was probably pointing out that it was a ball of light, not a solid object. If look at a star, and then fly a plane and look at that same star, it's likely the light will not change size to your perception. You should watch the whole video because the physicist explained clearly that it wasn't faked.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2009 1:28:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
So your proof is, I should 'feel' it. If I don't I'm clearly not open to it.

And some fuzzy video, amongst the countless 1000s of other fuzzy videos.

Awesome.

Shame the ability to insterstellar, cross dimensionally travel and go squishy to grass, doesn't yet equip them with the ability to write English correctly. :(
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2009 1:31:22 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/8/2009 1:28:54 AM, Puck wrote:
So your proof is, I should 'feel' it. If I don't I'm clearly not open to it.

And some fuzzy video, amongst the countless 1000s of other fuzzy videos.

It was a rather clear video to me.

Shame the ability to insterstellar, cross dimensionally travel and go squishy to grass, doesn't yet equip them with the ability to write English correctly. :(

He didn't attend earth schools to learn English. He can however speak all the major world languages.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2009 1:34:49 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/8/2009 1:16:19 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Not true. It was a light. She was probably pointing out that it was a ball of light, not a solid object. If look at a star, and then fly a plane and look at that same star, it's likely the light will not change size to your perception. You should watch the whole video because the physicist explained clearly that it wasn't faked.

Actually, it will; the closer the light is, the brighter it will be. Take that an airplane's lights pale in comparision to the light of an actual star, you can see my point. There is also relative size, noting that the light from an airplane will most likely appear brighter and large because it is much closer to us than a star. Don't forget that an airplane is also moving, while a star is not.

Which brings me to the ball of light. Not only would the luminosity have to change accordingly to the movement of the ball of light to the lens of the camera, it would also have to become smaller, especially given that we have the background of the farm field to compare it to. If it doesn't, it either means a) the ball of light glows and grows in relation to its distance from the lens, or b) it is an outright fake.

And all I got from Dr. Hasselhoff is that because some sort of node expanded because of some electro-magnetic field, blabbly blah blah... I found his entire dissertation on the subject online, so I'll take a look at it.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2009 1:47:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
As for the getting smaller thing, size constancy is a perceptual output observed in a lot of scenarios. A small object moving away, and let's face it, the video doesn't show it moving away far, will not necessarily appear smaller. Nor will a fake object transposed on video. :P
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2009 1:50:11 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/8/2009 1:47:31 AM, Puck wrote:
As for the getting smaller thing, size constancy is a perceptual output observed in a lot of scenarios. A small object moving away, and let's face it, the video doesn't show it moving away far, will not necessarily appear smaller. Nor will a fake object transposed on video. :P

I disagree. It moves quite a far distance in comparision to the lens. They traverse an entire field, and then fitter off into another field and disappear. Given that they seem maybe the size of a human, they're quite big and they'll appear smaller as they move farther and farther away.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2009 1:53:38 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/8/2009 1:50:11 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/8/2009 1:47:31 AM, Puck wrote:
As for the getting smaller thing, size constancy is a perceptual output observed in a lot of scenarios. A small object moving away, and let's face it, the video doesn't show it moving away far, will not necessarily appear smaller. Nor will a fake object transposed on video. :P

I disagree. It moves quite a far distance in comparision to the lens. They traverse an entire field, and then fitter off into another field and disappear. Given that they seem maybe the size of a human, they're quite big and they'll appear smaller as they move farther and farther away.

That probably occurred after I stopped watching the rubbish. :D
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2009 1:56:45 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/8/2009 1:53:38 AM, Puck wrote:
That probably occurred after I stopped watching the rubbish. :D

Rofl.

Skeptic high five?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2009 1:58:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
National Geographic examined the video to see if it was real and did not mention the light never changing size as a reason to believe it was faked. They did however conclude it was fake because of the filmer's reaction and because a group of video editors could replicate it. So I still would suggest that you wouldn't expect the light to change size given the small distance traveled. Remember it traveled a long distance horizontally, not further away from the camera.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2009 2:04:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/8/2009 1:58:59 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
National Geographic examined the video to see if it was real and did not mention the light never changing size as a reason to believe it was faked. They did however conclude it was fake because of the filmer's reaction and because a group of video editors could replicate it.

Granted, they may not have included it in because it is a miniscule detail, but an important one nonetheless.

Though, if someone can fake it... why are we even having this discussion?

So I still would suggest that you wouldn't expect the light to change size given the small distance traveled. Remember it traveled a long distance horizontally, not further away from the camera.

It doesn't quite work that way, Geo.

The lens is a point, not a line. If the ball of light travels horizontally along a line, it is still moving farther away from the point, which means it will still appear smaller and less bright.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2009 2:11:05 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/8/2009 2:04:42 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/8/2009 1:58:59 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
National Geographic examined the video to see if it was real and did not mention the light never changing size as a reason to believe it was faked. They did however conclude it was fake because of the filmer's reaction and because a group of video editors could replicate it.

Granted, they may not have included it in because it is a miniscule detail, but an important one nonetheless.

Though, if someone can fake it... why are we even having this discussion?

They had professional video editors duplicate it, but I doubt the farmer boy in 1996 knew how to do that.

So I still would suggest that you wouldn't expect the light to change size given the small distance traveled. Remember it traveled a long distance horizontally, not further away from the camera.

It doesn't quite work that way, Geo.

The lens is a point, not a line. If the ball of light travels horizontally along a line, it is still moving farther away from the point, which means it will still appear smaller and less bright.

I still doubt it would be a noticeable change in size.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2009 2:14:40 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/8/2009 2:11:05 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
They had professional video editors duplicate it, but I doubt the farmer boy in 1996 knew how to do that.

Appeal to.. I don't know, hicksterism?

Don't doubt the abilities of 90's farmboys. Some of them have hobbies, and one of those hobbies could be cinematography.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2009 2:21:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/8/2009 2:14:40 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/8/2009 2:11:05 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
They had professional video editors duplicate it, but I doubt the farmer boy in 1996 knew how to do that.

Appeal to.. I don't know, hicksterism?

Don't doubt the abilities of 90's farmboys. Some of them have hobbies, and one of those hobbies could be cinematography.

We can duplicate anything these days, so no video evidence will ever be adequate for anyone. I say that everyone is guilty of a raising the bar fallacy.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2009 2:39:10 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/8/2009 1:01:50 AM, Volkov wrote:
I would also like to know how any of this can be verified outside of "listening to your Soul," so that my "rational Earth_Mind" can contemplate what this f*ckery is.

At 11/8/2009 1:28:54 AM, Puck wrote:
So your proof is, I should 'feel' it. If I don't I'm clearly not open to it.

No, he was talking about interpreting the symbols of the crop circles.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2009 1:07:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/8/2009 12:53:09 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Crop Circles as explained by a Pleiadian named Alaje (believe it or not):

There is nothing to believe. Every single thing you say is simply fantasy with no support in reality.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2009 1:09:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/8/2009 1:05:02 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
A PhD physicist even examined the crop circle and proved that it was real.

Of course it's real. What else would it be? Imaginary?
It's still made by humans.
So prove me wrong, then.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2009 1:20:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/9/2009 1:09:16 PM, regebro wrote:
At 11/8/2009 1:05:02 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
A PhD physicist even examined the crop circle and proved that it was real.

Of course it's real. What else would it be? Imaginary?
It's still made by humans.

Humans with electromagnetic radiation? Usually man made ones are stomped down by wooden boards and the crops are not flattened in a miraculously precise manner.

It's very easy to distinguish between man made and alien made crop circles.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2009 2:41:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/9/2009 1:20:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Humans with electromagnetic radiation? Usually man made ones are stomped down by wooden boards and the crops are not flattened in a miraculously precise manner.

It's very easy to distinguish between man made and alien made crop circles.

OK, so how do you do it, precisely, and can you refer to any scientific literature where this is done?
So prove me wrong, then.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2009 3:59:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The only way I'd ever become a believer in "contact" is if I had first hand proof, or if they invaded or something.
Mainly because the evolution of life is something which the chances of happening are insanely small, and intelligent life even smaller.

Now in a universe as big as ours one might say the chances of that happening elsewhere shoot up to near absolute certainty, and I would agree.

But, A universe as big as ours is rather difficult to traverse, being that there are (according to our understanding) real limits to just how fast you can go. And further, why anyone would want to go that far at all doesn't make too much sense.

So if there are aliens I think the chances of us ever running into them are rather too small to take seriously.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2009 4:17:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/9/2009 3:59:42 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
The only way I'd ever become a believer in "contact" is if I had first hand proof, or if they invaded or something.
Mainly because the evolution of life is something which the chances of happening are insanely small, and intelligent life even smaller.

Now in a universe as big as ours one might say the chances of that happening elsewhere shoot up to near absolute certainty, and I would agree.

But, A universe as big as ours is rather difficult to traverse, being that there are (according to our understanding) real limits to just how fast you can go. And further, why anyone would want to go that far at all doesn't make too much sense.

So if there are aliens I think the chances of us ever running into them are rather too small to take seriously.

He put a video of himself on the internet, and I've spoken to him. Also, you are assuming that life evolved here on Earth. We could have all evolved from the same planet, and diverged from there, and essentially those ET's visiting us have the same origin. And just as it so happens, that is the case.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2009 4:25:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/9/2009 4:17:30 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/9/2009 3:59:42 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
The only way I'd ever become a believer in "contact" is if I had first hand proof, or if they invaded or something.
Mainly because the evolution of life is something which the chances of happening are insanely small, and intelligent life even smaller.

Now in a universe as big as ours one might say the chances of that happening elsewhere shoot up to near absolute certainty, and I would agree.

But, A universe as big as ours is rather difficult to traverse, being that there are (according to our understanding) real limits to just how fast you can go. And further, why anyone would want to go that far at all doesn't make too much sense.

So if there are aliens I think the chances of us ever running into them are rather too small to take seriously.

He put a video of himself on the internet, and I've spoken to him. Also, you are assuming that life evolved here on Earth. We could have all evolved from the same planet, and diverged from there, and essentially those ET's visiting us have the same origin. And just as it so happens, that is the case.

You've spoken to him face-to-face?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2009 4:29:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/9/2009 4:25:25 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/9/2009 4:17:30 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/9/2009 3:59:42 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
The only way I'd ever become a believer in "contact" is if I had first hand proof, or if they invaded or something.
Mainly because the evolution of life is something which the chances of happening are insanely small, and intelligent life even smaller.

Now in a universe as big as ours one might say the chances of that happening elsewhere shoot up to near absolute certainty, and I would agree.

But, A universe as big as ours is rather difficult to traverse, being that there are (according to our understanding) real limits to just how fast you can go. And further, why anyone would want to go that far at all doesn't make too much sense.

So if there are aliens I think the chances of us ever running into them are rather too small to take seriously.

He put a video of himself on the internet, and I've spoken to him. Also, you are assuming that life evolved here on Earth. We could have all evolved from the same planet, and diverged from there, and essentially those ET's visiting us have the same origin. And just as it so happens, that is the case.

You've spoken to him face-to-face?

No, but that would be cool. I've spoken to two ET's on the internet so far though.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2009 6:56:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/9/2009 4:17:30 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

He put a video of himself on the internet, and I've spoken to him. Also, you are assuming that life evolved here on Earth. We could have all evolved from the same planet, and diverged from there, and essentially those ET's visiting us have the same origin. And just as it so happens, that is the case.

Yes if life came to earth, than it is plausible that there is life nearby.
But if it is intelligent then why are there no signs of it then, we can see pretty good for as far as aliens can plausibly travel within 500 years or so. The farther they can travel, I would imagine the greater the evidence of their society would be.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2009 10:31:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
No, but that would be cool. I've spoken to two ET's on the internet so far though.

*smashes face into table*

I've asked you this a long time ago, but let me try again. Okay Geo, I can understand perhaps believing in one conspiracy theory (911 attacks?) or two, but for you adhere to such a myriad of them is way past the limit for even a sane person.

The net sum of your conspiracy beliefs would force the average, intelligent person to abandon all their presuppositions about world history - for you suppose that a secret group has been tampering with major events for a long time. The average, intelligent person would have to abandon all their presuppositions about sociology, to be able to believe that numerous people in numerous situations have acted so contrary and uniquely from other organizations who were involved in similar practices but without telltale sociological symptoms (hierarchy of power, the truth leaking out somehow in some form, etc.). The average, intelligent person would have to abandon all their presuppositions about astrobiology, at least about any detectable lifeforms in the vicinity of human detection, let alone on our damn planet already. The list goes on...

Now Geo...that's a lot of foundation thrown out. You like Occam's Razor, right? I like it too. So if we both like Occam's Razor, then please give us some better evidence then a flimsy, debunked YouTube video and some personal testimonies.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2009 11:00:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/9/2009 10:31:50 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
No, but that would be cool. I've spoken to two ET's on the internet so far though.

*smashes face into table*

I've asked you this a long time ago, but let me try again. Okay Geo, I can understand perhaps believing in one conspiracy theory (911 attacks?) or two, but for you adhere to such a myriad of them is way past the limit for even a sane person.

They're not separate by any means. It's all one conspiracy with many aspects including politics, history, religion, science, medicine, education, foreign relations, etc.

The net sum of your conspiracy beliefs would force the average, intelligent person to abandon all their presuppositions about world history

"History is the lie commonly agreed upon." - Voltaire

- for you suppose that a secret group has been tampering with major events for a long time. The average, intelligent person would have to abandon all their presuppositions about sociology,

Of course.

to be able to believe that numerous people in numerous situations have acted so contrary and uniquely from other organizations who were involved in similar practices

What.

but without telltale sociological symptoms (hierarchy of power, the truth leaking out somehow in some form, etc.).

There have been many whistleblowers over the centuries, but now moreso than ever.

The average, intelligent person would have to abandon all their presuppositions about astrobiology,

And this is a bad thing? How can we even have any valid presuppositions about astrobiology? Michio Kaku proved mainstream science is ignorant in that area, and any presupposition resulting from the likes of SETI would be absurd. If we are to rely on anything, the Drake Equation gives us a fair view of the probabilities.

at least about any detectable lifeforms in the vicinity of human detection, let alone on our damn planet already. The list goes on...

Again, I don't see why abandoning these ideas is a bad thing.

Now Geo...that's a lot of foundation thrown out. You like Occam's Razor, right? I like it too.

Of course.

So if we both like Occam's Razor, then please give us some better evidence then a flimsy, debunked YouTube video and some personal testimonies.

I would hardly call it a debunked YouTube video. The reasons debunkers claimed that is because the scientists papers were eventually rejected after being accepted in the scientific peer journal (and that reason was because there weren't multiple experiments of the same kind to verify it). They were able to duplicate the video (we can duplicate anything these days) and they criticized the filmer's reaction. If people call that debunked, I'm not impressed.

Not to mention the countless footage of UFO's. Any clear footage is immediately dismissed as fake because it can be duplicated. I call that moving the goal post.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat