Where did the paranormal go?

dowie said:
Eh? I've not presented any hypothesis. But you presumably read this contamination/the had to move the base somewhere - I was just asking for some further detail? a Link etc..?
Click to expand...

You have presented a hypothesis - the hypothesis that nothing has been moved from the Groom Lake base, building on the hypothesis that the contamination (for which there is some evidence) either never happened or did happen but did not affect any part of the base. So where are your links for that?

It boils down to this:

Based on the extremely limited evidence, which shows that some people who worked at the facility were exposed to hazardous materials and some of those hazardous materials are known, I think it's plausible that some contamination of part of the site occured and some degree of scaling down of the work there happened. I've not claimed to know that happened. I've just expressed an opinion that it's plausible. I think it's plausible. You don't. Neither of us can provide proof because of the scarcity of evidence. There is evidence of contamination, but that's all. The extent of contamination is a secret. What the contaminants are is a secret. Which is why I think it's plausible that the contamination was enough to prompt a reduced use of the facility.
 
Angilion said:
You have presented a hypothesis - the hypothesis that nothing has been moved from the Groom Lake base, building on the hypothesis that the contamination (for which there is some evidence) either never happened or did happen but did not affect any part of the base. So where are your links for that?
Click to expand...

That's essentially the null hypothesis, it's kind of the default position to accept unless you're going to demonstrate something otherwise. The base certainly still does appear to be in use.

It boils down to this:

Based on the extremely limited evidence, which shows that some people who worked at the facility were exposed to hazardous materials and some of those hazardous materials are known, I think it's plausible that some contamination of part of the site occured and some degree of scaling down of the work there happened. I've not claimed to know that happened. I've just expressed an opinion that it's plausible. I think it's plausible. You don't. Neither of us can provide proof because of the scarcity of evidence. There is evidence of contamination, but that's all. The extent of contamination is a secret. What the contaminants are is a secret. Which is why I think it's plausible that the contamination was enough to prompt a reduced use of the facility.
Click to expand...

Sorry but again you've provide nothing, you indicated that this was something others had claimed, yet it seems like you're making up the claim yourself now. I was asking for a link etc.. to where these claims have been made before, I wasn't asking for you to repeat the claim. I'm not sure there is evidence of "contamination" of part of the site, aside from the fact some chemicals were burned in open pits leading to health issues with some contractors... that in itself provides no basis to then leap to some conclusion that some unspecified aspect of the base has been relocated.

I'll ask again - where did these claims originate, can you provide a link?
 
aardvark said:
lol - thats the best they have?
Click to expand...
If any of it's true then it certainly amounts to some interesting reading. I don't know what most on here are banging on about? As far as I'm concerned most, if not all alleged supernatural occurrences, will one day be explained by a far more complete understanding of nature through science. Tbh I think the term supernatural ought be consigned to the waste bin of history since it's no longer needed. This is not to say all ghosts are fake etc

Edit: With regard to the Scole Experiment/report it was:
A five-year, 500-session, 1000-hour, multi-country, multi-disciplinary experiment testing paranormal evidence for 'life after death' and 'other dimensions' of conscious existence.

I believe there was an engineer , a psychologist and another scientist involved in this. They were asked to investigate this phenomena by the Society for psychic research, many of which were eminent scientists and academics; some with noble prizes. I just mentioned it as I thought it was interesting. There was also one magician who witnessed the phenomena first hand called James Webster (Associate and silver medal holder of the Inner Magic circle. Forty years experience) who professionally concluded that what he witnessed could not be duplicated as a trick. No other magician would take up the challenge to appear over a period of five years. It's also the only paranormal investigation to have in its possession a a tangible piece of evidence (a so-called permanent paranormal object) for which there is no normal explanation. A newspaper article that appeared out of thin air:

which was taken to the Print Industries Research Association, a world authority on paper and printing, who informed him in due course that their detailed examination of the typeface demonstrated that it had been printed by letterpress, a long-since obsolete technique. Furthermore, their chemical analysis of the paper on which the apport was printed revealed it to be Second World War newsprint, long since unavailable. In his further investigations MK ascertained that the apported version differed from the copy of the Daily Mail for April 1st 1944 kept in the British Library only in that it was an earlier edition of that day's print run.

Even if someone had kept a copy of the newspaper back in 1944 as a memento of the legally martyred Helen Duncan, the article was about her, it would hardly have been in pristine condition 60 years later. Even careful vacuum packing and secure sealing against the intrusion of light and air, although it might have helped delay the yellowing of the wartime newsprint, would hardly have maintained it in this condition for such a lengthy period of time. In addition, the notion that someone would have had access to the necessary technology and expertise for doing this back in 1944, with the Second World War still at its height, surely stretches the bounds of credibility to breaking point.

 
Last edited:
dowie said:
That's essentially the null hypothesis, it's kind of the default position to accept unless you're going to demonstrate something otherwise. The base certainly still does appear to be in use.
Click to expand...

Since I haven't claimed it isn't, what point do you think you're making?

Sorry but again you've provide nothing [..]
Click to expand...

Thanks for letting me know that further posting is pointless. False apologies, holding others to standards you refuse to meet yourself, dismissing anything as implausible even when it's only suggested as plausible and not definite, asking for evidence that you know doesn't exist and for something that hasn't been said. Go argue with yourself or find some conspiracy nutter to exchange pointless nonsense with. The false apology was too obvious - you're trying to wind me up. You're just wasting my time and your own.
 
Eh? You made some claims, I've simply asked you to provide something to back up those claims, it is hardly a controversial or unreasonable request, yet it is somewhat illuminating that you're either unwilling or unable to provide anything.

Angilion said:
The alleged reason for the move isn't "just so some UFO fans don't know where it is anymore". The alleged reason for the move is contamination of the site with hazardous materials.
Click to expand...

What allegations - by whom? That's all I'm asking. You've linked to nothing, all you've done is extend some convoluted argument yourself re: the workers trying to get compensation re: chemicals being burned in an open pit -> the site was moved. Whereas there you refer to some "alleged reasons for the move" etc...
 
Isn't it a bit unreasonable to ask for proof to validate some claims relating to a supposedly top-secret military base? I mean, what proof are you expecting?

It's all going to be speculation isn't it. There's not going to be any proof.
 
People who believe in conspiracy theories are also more likely to believe in pseudoscience and paranormal phenomena, according to new research published in the journal Applied Cognitive Psychology. The findings indicate that some people appear to have a general susceptibility to believing unsubstantiated claims.
Click to expand...

So, gullible.
 
I think all dowie wants to know is where these contamination claims came from, a link to an article or anything providing something tangerine.
 
NVP said:
I think all dowie wants to know is where these contamination claims came from, a link to an article or anything providing something tangerine.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what Dowie wants to know. They know that already because they've already looked for and found that. I didn't specify certain details, such as the alleged source of materials and the alleged disposal method. Dowie replied with those things.

What Dowie wants is for me to provide proof of something I never said, claimed or supported, knowing that of course such proof would be impossible because it's a secret base. Assuming I had made the claims Dowie is claiming I made, which I didn't.
 
NVP said:
I think all dowie wants to know is where these contamination claims came from, a link to an article or anything providing something tangerine.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. (well sort of - not the contamination but the allegation of the base or part of it being moved)

Angilion said:
No, that's not what Dowie wants to know. They know that already because they've already looked for and found that. I didn't specify certain details, such as the alleged source of materials and the alleged disposal method. Dowie replied with those things.

What Dowie wants is for me to provide proof of something I never said, claimed or supported, knowing that of course such proof would be impossible because it's a secret base. Assuming I had made the claims Dowie is claiming I made, which I didn't.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking you to provide proof of this story, you talked about allegations etc.. I've simply asked you, a few times now, what allegations, what are you referring to? Got any links?

Why pretend otherwise?
 
Last edited:
FoxEye said:
Isn't it a bit unreasonable to ask for proof to validate some claims relating to a supposedly top-secret military base? I mean, what proof are you expecting?

It's all going to be speculation isn't it. There's not going to be any proof.
Click to expand...

I've not requested proof, I'm simply interested in further details, where the allegations come from, on what basis are they made etc... Not all speculation is equal... some of it is rather silly.

Claims have been made and rather straightforward questions asked, they're hardly unreasonable questions - I'll try and clarify again below:

Angilion said:
There is a plausible hypothesis that the base was contaminated with something and mostly abandoned as a result. Maybe it was. There are plenty of things it could have been contaminated with in the past. Nuclear, biological and chemical. Or maybe that's a lie spread by the authorities too. Who knows? There is a rather dodgy presidential order forbidding a legal investigation bought by some people who claim they were seriously harmed by hazardous materials at the site.
Click to expand...

Is there? Who put forward this plausible hypothesis?

Angilion said:
The alleged reason for the move isn't "just so some UFO fans don't know where it is anymore". The alleged reason for the move is contamination of the site with hazardous materials.
Click to expand...

Who made these allegations re: the base being moved?

That's all I'm asking for, where is the link/article etc.. where this hypothesis is presented or these allegations made? What is the basis for your claims? That isn't unreasonable to ask, I'm simply interested in reading about the claim directly.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
I've not requested proof, I'm simply interested in further details, where the allegations come from, on what basis are they made etc... Not all speculation is equal... some of it is rather silly.
Click to expand...

And there's the core of it.

You think that it's silly to think it's possible that contamination of a site with hazardous materials might have resulted in some reduction in use of that site.

I think that it isn't silly.

Since the site in question is so secret that several presidents of the USA have re-issued a formal presidential order that the site (and only that site) be exempt from the law regarding contamination with hazardous materials, nobody can provide proof. You can ask over and over and over again and you'll get nowhere. I won't do the same to you to support your suggestion that nothing could have been moved because the site is still there and something is being done there. Nor will I reply with links I'm sure you've already seen (since I know you've looked into the contamination), as that would be pointless since you've already decided it's silly and you'll already have seen the links anyway.

For the benefit of anyone seeing the tail end of this, here is what I'm actually said (and continue to say):

1) There is some evidence of some contamination with some hazardous materials. This goes as far as evidence from medical exams and autopsies, which originate from outside the base and aren't secret. They've been presented in court.
2) Some people think that some of the work done at the site has been moved to other sites. Note that I am not saying that this happened.
3) I think it's plausible that (1) might have led to (2), if (2) happened.

That's it. I only replied because someone claimed that some unspecified stuff had been moved and someone else replied saying that they didn't think it would be moved to prevent people finding out about aliens. I just mentioned a possible reason for a move that's not related to aliens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom