Quit responding to points that people haven't made.
You are making as many insinuations as I am.
Your 'limitations due to logic' is a fail. No one is claiming what you think is impossible, it has to do with convincing others that there is any merit.
I'm not attempting to convince others of anything seeing seeing as how I firmly believe it's not possible to change reality from within consciousness. Stop making assumptions that I am here to convince you of anything. I am REMINDING you there are an infinite amount of perceptions, you are limited to ONE so how can you call you truly call it reality when your perception of it is based on only a few decades of life rather than the experience from the initial point.
Sure, the Statue of Liberty could wave her hand, that actually is a possibility according to physics. However for the chance that all of the atoms to behave in sync, we would likely be waiting for a trillion times longer than the 14.5 billion years the universe has been in existence. It's merely a practical matter that we consider things impossible, something,
Not true. We can only consider them something within an experience that seems to be real. You are again insinuating a limitation that you are limited to reality when this fact is only an illusion and part of the experience.
BTW, I never said about anything you claimed. I merely expressed doubt, yet you continue to create the strawman that I'm limiting you.
You're not limiting me at all, don't worry about that
You seem to hold much disdain for logic considering the profession you wish to pursue.
The experience of reality is the only time i apply my logic for my profession. I realize outside of this dimension there is no such thing as logic.
It is only through logic and reason that we have the technology to even speak to one another.
I thought you said earlier we are able to speak to one another based on natural evolution (logic and reason is where we differ from any other organism therefore evolution would be based directly on logic and reason would it not?). That's my interpretation.
Logic and rational thought has progressed mankind further than spirituality and wishful thinking.
Only progressed mankind as a whole, not as individuals comprising of that whole. I'll take the other side and say logic and rational thought has held us back from accepting possibilites too. It's certainly important to apply logic and reason within life because it's how we discover things in this state.
I thought
As to the starchild. You asked if I read the article. Did you?
Sir yes sir!
Did you see raw data, citations, or any verification of his claims?
Sir, enough, sir!
Can you demonstrate to me that he isn't making shit up?
Can you demonstrate to me that he or anyone else who publishes scientific findings isn't making shit up? I call bullshit on gravitons, quarks, neutrinos and everything else because I claim they were making up a whole shitload of subatomic particles because they can't find out how an atom works. Ignorant of me isn't it?
No, because he doesn't release the work.
I thought you read the article. That WAS the work.
I too can claim fantastical things about genetic studies but until it can be verified independently, it's mere blustering talk. If you seriously think Lloyd Pye has some merit, you should do some background research before you accept what he claims.
Basically he has been begging science to confirm the identity of the skull for 12 plus years.
Are you under the impression that Lloyd Pye is the only credible information I have as to alien existance? I have many hours of people telling the public through the disclosure project that we are not alone. Don't judge me because you think I'm being thick by believing credible high ranking officials are lying to me.
Most scientists said NO, we don't want anything to do with that nonsense.
Typical because most scientists are caught up in publishing theories to pursue self credibility within the science community rather than embrace any possible illogical truth presented.
Finally after enough begging, some scientist said they would take a look at it. They all told him it was genetic mutation and or deformation.
Therefore the possibility of alien is eliminated? What about the evidence to suggest that we cannot extract the mitochondrial DNA with our current technology stating it contains DNA that we in a hydrocarbon based planet cannot analyze?
That answer wasn't good enough for him, (wasn't a alien) so he decided to ask some others to do a DNA test, but not after burning those bridges with the scientist who lent their time to him to analyze the skull. Then he finds a lab to do DNA testing in Canada. They do the test multiple times, they botch a few runs but ultimately come up with data that says the skull is human...
The skull CLEARLY WAS SIMILAR TO A HUMAN. The fact is it contains genetics which we are not able to extract yet theorizing that it is a human mutated naturally by an external force due to the structure of the skull. It is 3 times stronger than our skull and contains complex microfibres inscribed within the skull making it also lighter than our skull. That seems like a rather remarkable random mutation doesn't it?
This answer wasn't good enough, (no alien), he then gets angry at them and calls them lousy scientists and students, and that the data was to weak to be relevant... So he burns another bridge, and finds a lab who does historical forensic testing. He gets the test done, test confirms the skull had a human mother and most likely a human father, but the machine they had could not for some reason, match up the fathers DNA (shit happens).
Very scientific approach, shit really does happen. Twice a day usually in my reality.
This goes on and on, and then this idiot comes to the conclusion that it must be a ALIEN FATHER.. He doesn't even rule out all earthly possibilities, he just jumps right to space aliens. NOT SCIENCE!!
I agree we must not rule out the earthly posibilites. The fact is that we as a species were very unadvanced at the time, insinuating it may very well have been another species since the mutation is rather remarkable.
I'm don't dismiss things without reason. Pye has given me plenty of reasons to doubt his credibility. And here again you make the mistake of thinking we need time machines in order to falsify something.
I apologize if i gave you the impression that we need time machines to falsify something. We simply need to be there for the experience and to watch it unfold before we are born into life.
This is clearly a ridiculous standard to hold to anyone and is the my main beef with you. It explains how you do not understand burden of proof and levels of confidence in scientific pursuits. If you continue to keep this standard, then there is no fantastical claim that can ever be refuted.
Very true.
The dinosaurs were intelligent scientists and had incredible technology that unfortunately has not been discovered yet. Prove me wrong.
Can't, you could be right. In fact, you probably are.
You can't debunk my claim unless you have a time machine and watch the dinosaurs first hand. Until you stop accepting extraordinary claims as true until they can be disproven entirely, your worldview will continue to suffer and I doubt you will be successful in your scientific pursuits in school.
Meh, I prefer to sperate reality from illusion but am well aware that I am living life in the illusion so will come to all those traditions within it. You think I'm going to take it personally if you claim I will not be successful in scientific pursuits. I have been successful for my whole life and my logic doesn't make me any less able to see science as what is is today; INCOMPLETE.
You are due for an abrupt awakening.
If you are going to remember anything about me in the future; remember me telling you the irony of your statement. You won't realize you were asleep until you wake up hahaha. Namaste.
When I wrote before about dividing or assembling I can see how it fits. We stand on the surface of earth - from there we choose to let the intelligence of the sun into the heart of the earth. Or, we stop it at the surface and 'disallow' its rightful place. (no judgemento)...I don't think we can learn about something by telling it what it is. We can't just 'imagine' what it is either. How about something like "reach (belief), maintain (science)" (and vice versa)....no soapbox here, it's the herb that's propped me up 
There is a science to spirituality. There are inner observations that you can bench test. Get cozy with paradox, mon ami 
Nature is receptive of projected light to make things grow. There, we already have the model. Both 'are', but 'are better' together - otherwise we would not be here in the first place.
