Quantum Theologica

Quantum Theologica unites theology and science. This is a spiritual based philosophy that allows for the free discussion of science, ufology and the paranormal. We encourage members of all faiths to comment. Theology is an important part of this because religious texts are full of spiritual truths about the nature of reality. “The day Science begins to study nonphysical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all previous centuries of its existence.” NIKOLA TESLA

Thursday, December 29, 2005

The Case For UFO's Part 1

I say again, there's no REASONABLE doubt that UFO's and the beings who fly them do exist. I havn't heard one shred of evidence that disputes the evidence for UFO's yet. You can see some pictures of UFO's here:

You can read examples of UFO'S in ancient manuscripts here: http://bibleufo.com

You can see video's of UFO's here: http://www.projectprove.com/

You can read some eyewitness testimony from Presidents to Astronauts here: http://bibleufo.com/quoteintro.htm

See, you can't say that UFO's do not exist because you don't want to accept the evidence. There's tons of evidence for the existence of UFO's and the beings who fly them and there's hardly any evidence against. You can't ask people to suspend REASON because you are blinded by a belief system. This is the only way that you can't see what's directly in front of your face. You start with a priori that UFO's can't exist or that Ufology is illogical. Instead if you would just look at all of the evidence without a bias, you will see that there's no REASONABLE argument that counters the evidence for UFO's. This is not a general statement, it's just the truth. This is not like saying that flying pink monkey's exist. There's no evidence to back up that statement. There's plenty of evidence to back up the statement that UFO's and the beings who fly them do exist. You can't say, just because I don't want to see it because of my personal belief system, that these things don't exist. This is just suspending REASON in favor of your belief system. You can't say in this situation that I don't know what that's a picture of, but it's not a UFO. What you are saying with this statement is, I don't know what this is but it's not a UFO based on my personal belief and I'm not going to investigate these things further. Sorry, but REASON doesn't work this way. This is why skeptics can't debate ufology within reason, because reason asks for a verdict. It's what's called circumstantial evidence and direct evidence and we send people to jail all the time based on circumstantial evidence. This is because human beings can reason to a conclusion of guilt or innocence after hearing the evidence. You can't hear evidence for UFO's and say that it's not this or it's not that without any REASONED explanation to counter the evidence with. Let me lay out some of the evidence.

First, I will lay out what circumstantial evidence means.

Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence is the result of combining seemingly unrelated facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence. It goes on to say: Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning.....A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is generally considered more powerful, but successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

Direct Evidence: Evidence that stands on its own to prove an alleged fact, such as testimony of a witness who says she saw a defendant pointing a gun at a victim during a robbery. Direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d050.htm

In the case of Ufology you have circumstantial evidence and direct evidence. Here's some direct evidence from eyewitness testimony. The way that you evaluate eyewitness testimony is you look at the credibility of the witness that's making the claim. Let's look at some of the witnesses.

President Jimmy Carter "I am convinced that UFOs exist because I have seen one." Former U.S. President, Nobel Peace Prize winner and nominee.

Dr. J. C. MacKenzie "It seemed fantastic that there could be any such thing. At first, the temptation was to say it was all nonsense, a series of optical illusions. But there have been so many reports from RESPONSIBLE observers that they cannot be ignored. It seems hardly possible that all these reports could be due to optical illusions." MacKenzie was Chairman of the Canadian Atomic Energy Control Board and former president of the National Research Council.

I use the quote from Dr. MacKenzi to magnify my point. The testimony is coming from extremeley credible witnesses. It's coming from Presidents, govt. officials, military personel. astronauats, police officers and other well respected people from various communities. This would be called SUPER evidence in court. If you want to see more quotes, go to the Bible UFO link above or just google it. Also check out: http://www.ufoevidence.org/NewSite/Papers/UFOQuotes.htm

I have more evidence to layout and this post is pretty long already. Part 2 will cover cave paintings and ancient manuscripts. This is at least a 5 part series because the evidence is overwhelming.



Post a Comment

<< Home