Phil Deakins

Boudicca Littlebird wrote: Grow up. You see why nobody can possibly take you seriously. The above was your response to someone finding flaws in your evidence. If you had any answers at all, instead of just blind faith, you could have written a reasoned response but, instead, look at what you actually wrote.

Boudicca Littlebird wrote: Most had been there, but you only concerned in trolling me, so this is the last time I will answer you. I'm not only concerned with trolling you. I'm not trolling you at all. I'm actually dicussing your position with all your beliefs with you. It may feel like trolling to you but that's only because (a) I've been asking some genuine but hard questions that you can't answer and (b) I've been showing the gaping holes/chasms in your arguments and what you think of as evidence. So, if you will calm down and answer me, what makes you think that most of those dead astronomers had been to the south pole? It doesn't say that in the video. Can you show us something that shows that all those people were linked by the south pole? And I'll ask my previous again. If all those astronomers were killed, who do you think has been killing them? Governments? You might as well answer me because I'm not going to stop asking genuine questions and showing the flaws in your arguments if and when I see them.

It plays just fine in situ, but what point are you trying to make with it? You said, "over 20 astronomers from the south pole have died in accidents since it was spotted, well all the top ones that were looking for it." That video provides no evidence whatsoever to support your claim. It doesn't even provide evidence to support its own claim that astromomers are dying in pairs. All it does is show a load screenshots - one for each atronomer that died. The detail can't be read because it skips along so quickly that you do very well to read each headline. Not only that but you said over 20 atronomers from the south pole... The video only mentions the south pole for one or maybe two atronomers. All that video does is show that some astronomers have died. It doesn't even show a time period and it certainly doesn't suggest that they all worked at the south pole. It picked on astronomers but it could equally well have picked on any occupation and come up with the same sort of video. So, as evidence for your statement, it fails 100% - pretty much the same as you previous piece of evidence - the Horizom programme. But I have a question. Since you believe that all those astronomers died either because they were astronomers, or because they had something to do with your large object, or because they had something to do with the outer reaches of the solar system, who do you think has been killing them? Governments?

Leia36 wrote: In summation, you are are troll, a funny one, but none the less a troll, and you should prepare your arguments better if you are to be considered successful in your trolling, Good entertainment value that's all this thread is. True, and it's very enjoyable. It really is good entertainment There is quite a strong human tendancy to believe the person in front of us. For instance, it's easy for us to actually believe the person on the podium when s/he says that <something> is right, because of this, this, and this, and those other people are therefore wrong. We tend to accept what the person in front of us says, as long as it makes some sort of reasonable sense. The person in front of us can be in front of us in the flesh, in a book, on the web, on TV, etc. It's not at all difficult for a person, whose nature is such that it is likely to believe in conspiracy theories whenever someone puts one forward with some sort of persuasive argument, to believe all the oddball ideas that some people come up with, as long as they are accompanied by some sort of persuasive argument. The persuasive facts don't need to be actual facts as long as they are presented as facts. Then such a person actually believes that s/he is party to a truth that most people are ignorant of, and they can believe themselves to be, in a way, superior to most people because they know the truth while the masses are ignorant. Take those scientists, for instance. Someone told such people that a lot of the scientists who saw the large object have died since it was first seen. Obviously there must be something going on. Nobody is gullible enough to believe that the object itself singled those people out for death, so who or what killed them? The government that wants to keep it secret from the population? Aha! It must be the government. Who else could it be? The large object really is there, and the government is keeping it from us. Now we know the real truth! But in fact a lot of scientists, who were 'in the know', didn't die, so what now? That's just a rumour put about by the government to keep it secret from the population. Not only that, but the government obviously changed records of the deaths to keep it secret. They can do that. But I know the truth. I just made that up, of course, but it's really not difficult for people whose nature suits it, to believe the most preposterous things, and believe they are in possession of knowledge that the general population doesn't have. They can't prove it, of course, but that doesn't bother them because their nature is such that they really really want it to be true. When asked to show evidence, they make some excuse and don't show any, because the evidence doesn't actually exist. All they have is someone's idea that was presented with a few bits of facts, making the whole thing somewhat persuasive. They can only use bits of facts because whole facts kill their argument.

Rival Destiny wrote: You need to watch these videos backwards in order to get the message here. That's where I went wrong then. Dammit!

Boudicca Littlebird wrote: OK I am logging off now, have to say being here today has been a horrible experience, so I will post the BBC documentary watch all 4 vids. So, to sum up, I have asked you repeatedly for evidence or proof of what you claim, either your own evidence/proof or anyone else's, and the one piece of evidence you eventually offered does not support your claims. It is not evidence of what you claim.

Boudicca Littlebird wrote: Think one documentary was called, "are you good or evil", can't say any more as it would be working for you. Right. I watched all 6 parts of the documentary (not 4 as you stated in your last post). And, like just about all tales, there is always an element of truth. For example, brown dwarfs exist. That's the element of truth in your large object tale. In this case, there is an observed difference in the brains of psychopaths and non-psychopaths, but it isn't a gland, as you think it is. It's the non-functioning of areas (more than one) of the brain. Also, to be a psychopath you need to have a modified version of what is called the "warrior" gene. Also, the nature of psychopaths is such that they occupy an unexpected percentage of top boardroom jobs. That's according the BBC's Horizon programme that you linked to as evidence. So the bits of truth in your tale are, there is a difference in the brains of some people. and people on one side of the differences do tend to occupy a higher percentage of top boardroom jobs. Now, I'm using my memory here, which may not be absolutely accurate, but according to my memory, you claimed that there is more than one species of human on the earth, and they are differentiated by a gland in the brain, which is either turned on or off, and you cited the BBC programme as evidence of it. The BBC programmes says no such things. Either that, or you said that the gland in the brain is turned on or off according to how our "masters" [from another planet somewhere] want of each individual. You said or implied something along those lines. I can't state that there isn't a gland in the brain that could be on or off, or what the effects of it in either condition would be. What I can say is that the evidence you provided for it categorically does not support what you claimed. I.e. it isn't evidence for such a gland, or of more than one species of human - or anything even remotely similar to what you claimed. It is only evidence of a difference in the brains of psychopaths and non-psychopaths. I'm guessing here but I imagine you've been reading stuff from people like those 'ancient astronauts' fruitcakes, who take a bit of this, plus a bit of that, and mix it all together with a bit of the other, being careful to omit more bits of this, that, and the other that would speak against what they want to believe, and come up with a cast iron claim of something totally ludicrous - and claim that the this, that, and the other is absolute evidence of it. There is a saying, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" . I'll modify it a little and suggest it to you. If it sound too ridiculous to be true, it probably is.

Boudicca Littlebird wrote: Man made global warming is a myth, every planet is warming because of this large body. That's odd. We've had what appears to be global warming for a lot of years now - much longer than we've known about it. How long has this thing been in our solar system then? Our space craft take years to reach the edge of our solar system but heavenly bodies, such as stars move through space pretty darned quick as compared to our smail-like space craft. So, if it exists and is causing the global warming, judging by the length of time we've had global warming, shouldn't it have got here by now?

Boudicca Littlebird wrote: Can't you find it yourself, stop trying to get others to work for you, sound like that 1%, but you can't be as you are here. Never let it be said that I left others to do what I could myself. While you were writing the quoted post, I searched on Google for "2 species of humans". I found one BBC article that's about the human species splitting into 2 starting a thousand years from now - nothing to do with a gland in the brain. I read the Wikipedia article on humans and there's nothing there either. I did find an ebook (not a book that any publisher felt worthy of being printed) that claims there are "Two Species Of Human On Earth Now" but the write-up about it didn't suggest that it's anything to do with a gland in the brain. So show it or it doesn't exist and, if you believe it exists, then it's merely something that you've been told, presumably by reading the writings of some fruitcake or other, but have no evidence for. It won't be me who looks a fool if you don't provide links

Post links then. Make me look a fool. What are you afraid of?

You won't provide links - because you can't provide links - because no such links exist - or because it's something you've been told and swallowed hook, line and sinker

I am honestly not trying to understand your motives. I understand your mind so motives are irrelevant. The human race is part of nature, although I'm sure that you believe it is not a natural part of this world's nature - because someone said so and it appealed to you. Boudicca Littlebird wrote: A clue, those that collect gold do not have them, those that mine the gold do, how did that come about? It came about by some fruitcake in this world dreaming up an idea about ancient aliens, and later someone dreamed up the idea about glands in the brain. Sadly, nobody has ever managed to show any such gland, so it remains as mere imagination, which is believed as fact by those few who have those special brains that can "understand" it.

Boudicca Littlebird wrote: [...] why should I try to prove anything to people not able to understand it [...] I agree with you. It takes a special kind of mind to understand things the way you do. I certainly don't have that kind of mind and I don't think anyone else here has it either. So you're right. We here are incapable of understanding things they way you do.

Boudicca Littlebird wrote: As you all think me a nut you are safe, but should that change then that is a different story, your logic is flawed. So, in your opinion, what you're doing is trying to bring about the end of the human race, because that's what will happen when people know the truth that are you doing your best to spread. Shouldn't you be keeping quiet about it? Or do you prefer the destruction of the humanity?

Boudicca Littlebird wrote: What would you do with the proof, LOL, nothing, like I said I will try to predict with out telling you, I will say this , next year the affects will be even greater and most of the coastal area of the USA will be underwater thus ending the America empire. LMAO! I don't need to wait until next to know exactly what that prediction is

I'm not actually trying to debate it with her. I know what she is and I'm trying to show it without actually posting exactly what she is. I think I've been quite successful too. She's done as she always does - refuse to provide any sort of proof or evidence because she doesn't have any. As I said, I know what she is

It's not a new story. If my memory is correct, the company goes after their customers' neighbouring farmers whose land received the seeds naturally from their neighours crops who bought them. I don't like saying this but I don't believe they could get away with that anywhere but in the U.S. However, your conclusion is wrong, imo. For one thing, it's only in the U.S. and, for another, the company doesn't, and never will, own the planet's food supply.

Boudicca Littlebird wrote: I keep telling you that for you I give no proof. I will try to predict but I will not tell you how, why should I try to prove anything to people not able to understand it, if you have a theory of your own that defeats mine then say it, if this place was less hostile with a more mature thinker then I may Then provide proofs for everyone else. The truth is that you have no proofs for the things you state as facts. All you have is what other people say, specifically those "Ancient Aliens" fruitcakes. You are unable to predict anything from your own thinking/calculations. The best you can do is restate other people's predictions that you've read or been told. That's right, isn't it? So far, all your dates have been proved wrong, because they came and went without your predictions materialising, although they weren't your dates were they? They were dates that other people predicted, weren't they? There are some people here who are clearly able to understand the calculations that prove your 'facts'. Show them the proofs if you have any, or point them to other people's proofs, even though the rest of us "are unable to understand" in your opinion. They'll confirm what you claim if what you claim is true.

LMAO!

Brilliant, Darrius! Absolutely brilliant!

I haven't been abusive to you at all. I've asked you some hard questions, that's all, which you haven't even attempted to answer so far. You recently wrote that you don't believe anything simply because you read it (i.e. what other people say), which implied that you have to prove something for yourself in order to believe it, and have done so for 60 years. You post some firm beliefs here as statements of facts, and I think it's perfectly fair to ask you to show us the proofs that you've worked out for yourself. If you can't do that, at least show us other people's proofs that persuaded you to believe. You said you don't believe something just because someone else writes/says it, and I ask you to allow us to do the same. You state alleged facts, we don't believe them just because you state them so, like you, we want proof - at least I do. So show us the proof for the large, as yet unseen, body in our solar system. I'd also like you to show us the proof for your gold mining statement of fact. I know the latter one is from those "Ancient Aliens" fruitcakes but I'll allow that you may have proof of it, and I'd like to see it.

Boudicca Littlebird wrote: The earth has a rare element, gold, I believe gold is added to food to repair DNA so giving life spans in the range of millions of years, they are still mortal, but makes gold the most valuable and addictive drug in the universe. Simple to prove, we know how much gold has been mined, we only have to do a gold audit, as we have no use for it so every once should still be here. This is a belief that is held by those 'Ancient Aliens' / 'Was God An Astronaut?' fruitcakes. Are you aligning youself with them? Are you one of them? Is the Queen of England an alien reptile in disguise in your opinion?

Boudicca Littlebird wrote: LOL, why do you think this is here, been wanting to say this for a long time so needed to say it before i go. Oh alright then. So we can expect your departure when this thread has run its course. That'll do

So what makes you think that there's a large, as yet unseen, object approaching us. Show us your calculations and proof please. I ask this because I don't believe for one second that you have the scientific/mathematical ability to come to the conclusion youself. I believe that you've read it somewhere. But you also said you don't believe what you read just because you read it. That's why I ask for the proof that you yourself worked out. Oddly enough, I think that I'm one of not many people who can and does think outside if time. Not because I have a special ability, but because very few people even try. It just doesn't come up in every day living for the vast majority of people. You seem to be good at remembering what people write here - at least sometimes - so you might remember a very interesting thread not long ago where I described what *I* think of as singularity - not *a* singularity - just singuilarity. That singulaity concept is outside of time. But the concept of outside time has nothing to do with how "creatures" got here. In another recent post of yours you mentioned that we humans are here to mine gold. It went by without comment but I do know that that idea is one of the ideas espoused by the "ancient aliens" people, who are, of course, fruitcakes. Now, I'm not including you with those idiots, but you do see how great the temptation is to include you with them. ETA: STOP PRESS! You *are* in the 'ancient aliens' group of people. Since I wrote the bulk of this post, you actually, and coincidentally, wrote about the gold mining in your "Creationist" thread. Well, what can I say? Your beliefs realy are based on what other people tell you, and that's totally different to how you portrayed yourself as being for 60 years

How can that be? First, you're already finished with this forum and SL, and second, you never believe things just because you read them. You said both of those things. So how can you start a "How we got here" thread, because you certainly weren't around to see it for yourself, and you don't have the scientific skills to prove it.