PDA

View Full Version : [Merged] Their Return


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 06:38 AM
We humans are ALWAYS expanding our notion of what is possible. We are doing things today that were practically impossible ten years ago.

It was less than a century ago that many people considered it impossible to synch up sound with film to make a "talkie". Just ten years later, it was routine.

Those are baby steps...

Knowledge of them will catapult mankind forward into an unimaginable future.

Psiload
7th February 2011, 06:49 AM
Those are baby steps...

Knowledge of them will catapult mankind forward into an unimaginable future.




Um... allow me to point out to you that the ancient civilizations who(supposedly) had knowledge of them in the past were all catapulted into non-existence.

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 07:02 AM
Um... allow me to point out to you that the ancient civilizations who(supposedly) had knowledge of them in the past were all catapulted into non-existence.

...or ultimate ascension.

aggle-rithm
7th February 2011, 07:07 AM
I 'know' they exist, like I know there are cats in my neighborhood, even if I've never touched one of them.

Yes, but it's common knowledge that cats exist. It's not a huge leap to say that if there are catlike objects roaming in your neighborhood, that there are cats there.

What you're doing is saying that because you have seen things you can't explain (or at least you can't explain the likely flawed memory of them), that it is reasonable to assume they can be attributed to god-like beings who are watching us and will show up some day to change our lives.

That is a HUGE leap of logic.

GeeMack
7th February 2011, 07:08 AM
There is much evidence to show this is true...

Um... allow me to point out to you that the ancient civilizations who(supposedly) had knowledge of them in the past were all catapulted into non-existence.


This, on the other hand, can apparently only be supported with arguments from incredulity and ignorance...

...or ultimate ascension.

aggle-rithm
7th February 2011, 07:09 AM
...or ultimate ascension.

Nope. It's the non-existence one.

GeeMack
7th February 2011, 07:11 AM
That is a HUGE leap of logic.


It's a HUGE something, but Rules 0, maybe 6 and 9, certainly 10, and probably 12 prohibit us from being more specific.

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 07:13 AM
Yes, but it's common knowledge that cats exist. It's not a huge leap to say that if there are catlike objects roaming in your neighborhood, that there are cats there.

What you're doing is saying that because you have seen things you can't explain (or at least you can't explain the likely flawed memory of them), that it is reasonable to assume they can be attributed to god-like beings who are watching us and will show up some day to change our lives.

That is a HUGE leap of logic.

There ARE places where knowledge of heaven agents is common, just not 'here'.

The only huge leap being made here is skeptics dismissing out of hand, reports, historical accounts, videos, pictures, and paintings of these heaven agents as anecdotal.

Truly it takes superior ignorance to accomplish the feat, but many here complete the task daily without effort.

Psiload
7th February 2011, 07:19 AM
...or ultimate ascension.

No.

It's pretty clear that they all went out with slow withering whimper, rather than a sudden glorious bang.

aggle-rithm
7th February 2011, 07:23 AM
There ARE places where knowledge of heaven agents is common, just not 'here'.


And these places can join the "heaven agents" as unknown and unnecessary entities.


The only huge leap being made here is skeptics dismissing out of hand, reports, historical accounts, videos, pictures, and paintings of these heaven agents as anecdotal.

Truly it takes superior ignorance to accomplish the feat, but many here complete the task daily without effort.

Let's test that assumption.

Can you answer this question?

"If the heaven agents did not exist, then how would you know?"

In other words: By what criteria do you separate reports that are fraudulent or mistaken from those that are 100% accurate(Ditto with historical reports)? By what criteria do you separate videos and pictures of mundane events from those that MUST BE EVIDENCE OF HEAVEN AGENTS? By what criteria do you separate paintings of fantasy from those of verifiable fact? And, of those that are verifiable fact, what is the chain of logic that you follow from "something unexplainable" to "heaven agents"?

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 07:25 AM
No.

It's pretty clear that they all went out with slow withering whimper, rather than a sudden glorious bang.

Truly, the world does not now, and may never know for sure, which it was.

What we know, is that those who built Puma Punku, their knowledge, and tools are no longer 'here'...

carlitos
7th February 2011, 07:45 AM
There's no need for scare quotes. Dead people are no longer here.

aggle-rithm
7th February 2011, 07:48 AM
Truly, the world does not now, and may never know for sure, which it was.


No, we're pretty sure. There's tons more evidence for what happened than there is for "heaven agents".

Correa Neto
7th February 2011, 07:54 AM
You are really not willing to stick your neck outside the woo mud pool...

You know, archeologists found skeletons from the folks who built and lived at Machu Picchu, for example. Inca and pre-Inca sites and tombs are not exactly unheard of. Guess what? Not a single trace of modern tech. Ican elite at Machu Picchu had missing teeth and lots of cavities. One would think these elevated folks would have some dental care, right?

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 08:03 AM
No, we're pretty sure. There's tons more evidence for what happened than there is for "heaven agents".

I said 'advanced technology' was required, at Puma Punku.

There are and have also always been 'heavenly agents'.

Psiload
7th February 2011, 08:20 AM
I said 'advanced technology' was required, at Puma Punku.

There are and have also always been 'heavenly agents'.

Why apply advanced technology to a task as mundane and seemingly pointless as scratching grooves in rocks and stacking them up?

Why didn't the heavenly agents demonstrate some worthwhile technology to the Puma Punkans? Like an irrigation pump or something... you know... to keep their crops from failing and their civilization from collapsing.

Cleverly scratched and stacked rocks benefitted the citizens of Puma Punku exactly how?

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 08:31 AM
Why apply advanced technology to a task as mundane and seemingly pointless as scratching grooves in rocks and stacking them up?

...

This is a gross, even obscene description of the work those Puma Punku stones represent.

I'm ashamed of you.

RoboTimbo
7th February 2011, 08:34 AM
It's just a theory...

So, just something you made up then. Please don't dignify your imaginative daydreaming with the word "theory". Theory has a specific definition which your WAG* doesn't fit.








* Wild *** Guess

dafydd
7th February 2011, 08:37 AM
I 'know' they exist, like I know there are cats in my neighborhood, even if I've never touched one of them.

You really are hopeless when it comes to analogies.

dafydd
7th February 2011, 08:38 AM
Why apply advanced technology to a task as mundane and seemingly pointless as scratching grooves in rocks and stacking them up?

Why didn't the heavenly agents demonstrate some worthwhile technology to the Puma Punkans? Like an irrigation pump or something... you know... to keep their crops from failing and their civilization from collapsing.

Cleverly scratched and stacked rocks benefitted the citizens of Puma Punku exactly how?

Rock music?

carlitos
7th February 2011, 08:39 AM
I know that there were intelligent, stone carving invisible cats in my neighborhood 2000 years ago, because of the smooth lines in the sidewalk.

dafydd
7th February 2011, 08:39 AM
Truly, the world does not now, and may never know for sure, which it was.

What we know, is that those who built Puma Punku, their knowledge, and tools are no longer 'here'...

For once you are right,they are all dead and gone.

Psiload
7th February 2011, 08:54 AM
This is a gross, even obscene description of the work those Puma Punku stones represent.

I'm ashamed of you.


Enlighten us. What, exactly, does the work on the stones represent?

And, more importantly, what practical purpose, if any, did they serve?

To restate my previous question which you ignored...

Cleverly scratched and stacked rocks benefitted the citizens of Puma Punku exactly how?

dafydd
7th February 2011, 08:59 AM
Enlighten us. What, exactly, does the work on the stones represent?

And, more importantly, what practical purpose, if any, did they serve?

To restate my previous question which you ignored...

Cleverly scratched and stacked rocks benefitted the citizens of Puma Punku exactly how?

The rocks proved that the super advanced heavenly agents could stack and scratch rocks. I bet the citizens were amazed.

GeeMack
7th February 2011, 09:21 AM
The rocks proved that the super advanced heavenly agents could stack and scratch rocks. I bet the citizens were amazed.


Probably amazed that those aliens would travel all this way to do something as stupid and useless as scratch some rocks.

dafydd
7th February 2011, 09:23 AM
Probably amazed that those aliens would travel all this way to do something as stupid and useless as scratch some rocks.

When they come back maybe they will show us how to mix concrete.

GeeMack
7th February 2011, 09:30 AM
When they come back maybe they will show us how to mix concrete.


Sounds like we need to be showing them a thing or two. Dumb UFOliens.

tsig
7th February 2011, 09:31 AM
Personally Im still wondering about the "next step in evolution".

Does KOTA know something about evolution that I dont?

I'm a little worried about that 'next step' myself because I think that death is the real judge as to who wins the evolution race.:eek:

tsig
7th February 2011, 09:35 AM
Holy ****, Batman!

People believe some ****.

Was that lady in white the good witch? Would visitors from space be astronauts or terranauts?

I Ratant
7th February 2011, 09:49 AM
Um... allow me to point out to you that the ancient civilizations who(supposedly) had knowledge of them in the past were all catapulted into non-existence.
.
There is that! :D
Advanced human, be afwaid, be wery wery afwaid!

I Ratant
7th February 2011, 09:51 AM
This is a gross, even obscene description of the work those Puma Punku stones represent.

I'm ashamed of you.
.
Oh burn!

Waterman
7th February 2011, 10:53 AM
Still haven't answered this, KotA.

Where did you come by this knowledge? Or did you just make it up?

It's just a theory...

I have some theories, what about these?

So the OP wants us to speculate how to entice an assumed non-human intelligent race that lives in the near proximity of earth to reveal themselves to us. Unfortunately they have hidden themselves so well that we only have fleeting glimpses of them and know nothing about their nature or motivations. I am still reading this thread sorry if this is currently irrelevant.

IF we assume that they are grooming us for fodder and DNA source material I would think that like attracting bird to land, or a raccoon to visit your porch you might place out a big bowl of food out in plain sight perhaps shine lights on it. Any large sporting event could also be applicable.

IF we assume that they are really super intelligent and are looking for peers not subjects. It would also be reasonable to also think that they will see through our clumsy attempts at appeasement and see us as the backwards race we are and not worthy of revelation yet. Perhaps they will reveal themselves once they have determined we have advanced far enough mentally. The appeasement / adoration you imply would clearly indicate to them that we are not ready.

IF we assume that they are a bunch of joy riding hot rods that get a kick out of coming down every now and them to buzz some small group out in the middle of nowhere. Then there is probably nothing we can due to entice them, they get their kicks out of being mysterious and don’t want the spot light. If they did they would have already taken center stage somewhere. The World Cup Finals would have been an excellent opportunity. As pointed out if they did descend it would turn ANY event into a major event and all eyes would be turned in that direction.

IF we assume that they are waiting for us to reach some sort of mental level that has abandoned superstition and that their revelation will not cause worldwide panic. I would imagine that they would be waiting for a large majority of us to adopt a scientific mindset instead of a superstitious one. The best way to get them to descend would be to have the majority of the world to abandon religions and convert all the Houses of Worship into sometime more useful like parking lots, brothels or play grounds.

IF we assume that they are allergic to or find poisonous the trace byproducts of the burning of fossil fuels then they will not descend until we move completely to alternate energy methods and then atmosphere had been cleansed through natural processes.

IF we assume that they are out there and want to deal with humans on a business level perhaps they are already doing that. But they know that by revealing themselves they will cause significant damage to the economy and cause significant instability in the political realm. This would not be a problem is the majority of the world was largely under the sway of say a large corporation or a one world government. They are waiting on the New World Order or Wal-Mart to come to power so they only have to negotiate one treaty instead of hundreds.

IF we assume that they have developed sensory organs that can detect the radio frequency range they will probably not descend until we abandon that technology or they develop filters that do not affect their ability to communicate.

IF we assume that they find the odor of concrete or asphalt offensive that would explain why they never actually land in cities or populated areas. To get them to descend we would need to tear down all the concrete structures and rip up all the asphalt and find alternate construction methods and materials.

IF we assume that they really don’t care what we do or think and are nothing more than lab animals or pets, I think that anything that we do would solicit no more than a note in a technicians log book or an ‘isn’t that cute’ from a more kind hearted individual… if they have hearts…

If we assume that they actually feed off the psychic energy generated by emotional turmoil the best way to get them to descend would be to establish world peace. This would cause them to starve and force them out. However if this is the case they would probably do something to destabilize the Peace that has been established by setting themselves of as the enemy that we can’t reach. Perhaps they would operate covertly with targeted assassinations turning body guards on their charges when they appear too reasonable, initiate riots to destabilize governments, plant evidence of WMDs to instigate wars, fund fundamentalist organizations of all stripes to keep us at odds with each other and destroy our common round, call in to talk radio shows…

Whee that was fun.

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 11:20 AM
I have some theories, what about these?

...

Whee that was fun.

^Repeat post^

It was less funny the second time...

aggle-rithm
7th February 2011, 11:20 AM
I know that there were intelligent, stone carving invisible cats in my neighborhood 2000 years ago, because of the smooth lines in the sidewalk.

That's really the only possible explanation.

aggle-rithm
7th February 2011, 11:23 AM
Probably amazed that those aliens would travel all this way to do something as stupid and useless as scratch some rocks.

They haven't traveled, they've always been here!

We can infer this from the fact that they scratched and stacked some rocks.

Someone had to do it, why not heavenly agents? And someone has been here all along, why not heavenly agents?

It's simple logic.

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 11:57 AM
...

It's simple logic.

No, that's simple ignorance. As this isn't my argument in any shape, form, or fashion.

carlitos
7th February 2011, 11:59 AM
No, that's simple ignorance. As this isn't my argument in any shape, form, or fashion.

Not simple ignorance. What you're doing is called an "argument from ignorance." Mine was just articulated more concisely than yours.

Laton
7th February 2011, 12:32 PM
Cleverly scratched and stacked rocks benefitted the citizens of Puma Punku exactly how?

[Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy]
Newscaster:"And we'll be saying a big hello to all intelligent life forms everywhere. And to everyone else out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys." [/HHGTTG] :D

bruto
7th February 2011, 12:45 PM
This is a gross, even obscene description of the work those Puma Punku stones represent.

I'm ashamed of you.No it isn't really, even if you consider the stone work at Puma Punku to be great art and artisanship. The idea that "advanced technology" would be exclusively dedicated to that purpose means one of two things: either you're wrong or the maniacs responsible are the very last sort of folks we should be inviting back.

Psiload
7th February 2011, 01:16 PM
This is a gross, even obscene description of the work those Puma Punku stones represent.

I'm ashamed of you.


Are you even going to attempt to explain how I've insulted the tender sensibilities of the heavenly visitors, or are you going to continue to be ashamed of me 'Just 'cuz'?

aggle-rithm
7th February 2011, 01:57 PM
No, that's simple ignorance. As this isn't my argument in any shape, form, or fashion.

No, essentially that IS your argument.

You speak of a long list of events, recorded in pictures, videos, eyewitness accounts, paintings, and historical records, that you can't explain.

You ARBITRARILY attribute these events to "heavenly agents".

Why must ALL these events be attributed to the same source? Why must they be heavenly agents, and not something else for which we have no evidence?

Why not hobgoblins? Pixies? Angels? And yes, even aliens?

Basically, your argument is: "Why not?"

I don't find that convincing. In fact, I find it worthy of ridicule.

Don't like being ridiculed? Give us something better.

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 04:21 PM
Not simple ignorance. What you're doing is called an "argument from ignorance." Mine was just articulated more concisely than yours.

Then you don't understand what my conclusion is, nor how I reached it, neither of which surprises me.

The only thing you've proven herein, is your ability to misinterpret my stance.

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 04:27 PM
Are you even going to attempt to explain how I've insulted the tender sensibilities of the heavenly visitors, or are you going to continue to be ashamed of me 'Just 'cuz'?

You're looking foolish doesn't offend me or my sensibilities. I just thought better of you than to diminish truly wondrous stone masonry, in an attempt to score a cheap point.

I thought you were better than that, buddy.

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 04:34 PM
...

Why not hobgoblins? Pixies? Angels? And yes, even aliens?

Basically, your argument is: "Why not?"

I don't find that convincing. In fact, I find it worthy of ridicule.

...

'They' have been called by MANY names, NONE of which can be verified. I don't know what 'they' are either, nor where they live, or what they purpose to do.

I know only that they exist. You can call them what you like, but that won't mean anything to anyone.

Heavenly agents works for me, as it places them 'above us' or rather existing in the skies, and there's more than one of them.

Personally I find ignorance and lies worthy of ridicule, both of which you've employed without regard here, but that's on you...and really none of my concern.

Marduk
7th February 2011, 04:36 PM
You're looking foolish doesn't offend me or my sensibilities. I just thought better of you than to diminish truly wondrous stone masonry, in an attempt to score a cheap point.

I thought you were better than that, buddy.

youre the one here claiming that Pumapunku is not the work of the masons who are known to have constructed it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sillustani
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colla_people
The architecture of these people is said to be more complicated than that of the Incas. There are no uneven edges, to which other stones have to be cut, unevenly, to fit. The site itself isn't as impressive, of course, as Ollantaytambo or Machu Picchu, but it's still a wonder. The burial tower above is about 40' high. Each tower has a small hole facing east, just large enough for a person to crawl through, the entrance closed after burials. These towers were made with chipping tools.
http://www.andrys.com/peru15.html
so you are the one doing the diminishing, I realise youve only recently been allowed out in public here but try to keep the content of your posts honest
thanks
;)

Pure Argent
7th February 2011, 04:41 PM
I know only that they exist.

How do you know?

there's more than one of them.

How do you know?

Weak Kitten
7th February 2011, 04:51 PM
Look Mr. King, you're bing rather confusing. Do you know anything about these not-aliens or don't you?

You keep saying things like:

I don't know what 'they' are either, nor where they live, or what they purpose to do.


And then and then in the same post you state:

Heavenly agents works for me, as it places them 'above us' or rather existing in the skies, and there's more than one of them.

You yell at us about the various stories we come up with and say we are wrong. Well, how do you know? Where is your proof? How do you know so darn much about them and how do you know that information is accurate?

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 05:15 PM
how do you know?



How do you know?

Because I've seen their work/craft, in action.

RoboTimbo
7th February 2011, 05:24 PM
'They' have been called by MANY names...

But will they come when you do call for them?

Marduk
7th February 2011, 05:28 PM
'They' have been called by MANY names, NONE of which can be verified.

if youre still looking for the builders of Pumapunku, the name "Colla/Kolla" has been verified

just not by you
:p

But will they come when you do call for them?
would you ?
:D

Psiload
7th February 2011, 05:39 PM
You're looking foolish doesn't offend me or my sensibilities. I just thought better of you than to diminish truly wondrous stone masonry, in an attempt to score a cheap point.

I thought you were better than that, buddy.

I have nothing but respect for the stone masons of Puma Punku who accomplished true architectural and stone working wonders using rudimentary tools circa 1000 AD. You, on the other hand, show great disrespect when you deny them the credit for accomplishments that are truly theirs in order to indulge your childish UFO fantasies.

Shame on you.

But... I knew you weren't better than that, amigo.

dafydd
7th February 2011, 05:39 PM
Because I've seen their work/craft, in action.

I doubt that.

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 05:40 PM
Look Mr. King, you're bing rather confusing. Do you know anything about these not-aliens or don't you?

...

How do you know so darn much about them and how do you know that information is accurate?

I know nothing about them, other than they exist and are more technologically advanced than we are. Oh, and people have seen them in our heavens since we could write on walls.

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 05:43 PM
But will they come when you do call for them?

I have never been able to summon them...that will take half the world, at least.

carlitos
7th February 2011, 05:45 PM
Then you don't understand what my conclusion is, nor how I reached it, neither of which surprises me.

The only thing you've proven herein, is your ability to misinterpret my stance.

Here's a crazy thought - articulate your stance clearly, so that I can understand it.

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 05:47 PM
I have nothing but respect for the stone masons of Puma Punku who accomplished true architectural and stone working wonders using rudimentary tools circa 1000 AD. You, on the other hand, show great disrespect when you deny them the credit for accomplishments that are truly theirs in order to indulge your childish UFO fantasies.

Shame on you.

But... I knew you weren't better than that, amigo.

Those works are IMPOSSIBLE with rudimentary tools. The work required an as of yet unfound 'advanced technology'.

Shame on you AGAIN for repeated misrepresenting my actual stance.

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 05:48 PM
Here's a crazy thought - articulate your stance clearly, so that I can understand it.

OR

You could read what I've already posted a thousand times...

RoboTimbo
7th February 2011, 05:57 PM
I have never been able to summon them...that will take half the world, at least.

How did you come by this knowledge that you continue to assert as fact?

aggle-rithm
7th February 2011, 06:03 PM
'They' have been called by MANY names, NONE of which can be verified. I don't know what 'they' are either, nor where they live, or what they purpose to do.

I know only that they exist.


Here's the key: Would they continue to exist if you stopped believing in them?



You can call them what you like, but that won't mean anything to anyone.

Heavenly agents works for me, as it places them 'above us' or rather existing in the skies, and there's more than one of them.

Personally I find ignorance and lies worthy of ridicule, both of which you've employed without regard here, but that's on you...and really none of my concern.

Failing to buy into your delusions does not constitute ignorance or lies.

Psiload
7th February 2011, 06:06 PM
I know nothing about them, other than they exist and are more technologically advanced than we are. Oh, and people have seen them in our heavens since we could write on walls.

Once again... why would a race of whateverthehells, who are more technologically advance than even we are today, apply their advanced technology to something as pointless and primitive as building not-particularly-sophisticated rock structures?

This isn't a question I'm asking in order to be deliberately disrespectful of the whateverthehells. It's a legitimate, logical question. Why did the heavenlywhatevers apply their extremely advanced technology to the extremely primitive task of building rudimentary structures out of stone?

Sean84
7th February 2011, 06:11 PM
'They' have been called by MANY names, NONE of which can be verified. I don't know what 'they' are either, nor where they live, or what they purpose to do.
What? Dunno.
Where? Dunno.
Why? Dunno.

I know only that they exist. You can call them what you like, but that won't mean anything to anyone.

Heavenly agents works for me, as it places them 'above us' or rather existing in the skies, and there's more than one of them.
Who? GODS FROM THE HEAVENS! LOOK UP!!!

Personally I find ignorance and lies worthy of ridicule, both of which you've employed without regard here, but that's on you...and really none of my concern.
By your own logic you are worthy of ridicule.

I Ratant
7th February 2011, 06:11 PM
OR

You could read what I've already posted a thousand times...
.
The same thing, one thousand times.
Wrong the first time, and every instance since.
There isn't a tipping point where piling up ignorance can suddenly turn into intelligence.

aggle-rithm
7th February 2011, 06:12 PM
Because I've seen their work/craft, in action.

Could you walk us through the thought process that takes you from "work/craft" to "heavenly agents"?

We all agree that there are things in the world that are hard to explain. The part that I'm missing is this:

1. Premise: There are things that are hard to explain
2. THIS IS THE MISSING PART
3. Conclusion: Heavenly agents

This is what I call a non-sequitur. What do you call it?

RoboTimbo
7th February 2011, 06:20 PM
Those works are IMPOSSIBLE with rudimentary tools. The work required an as of yet unfound 'advanced technology'.

Shame on you AGAIN for repeated misrepresenting my actual stance.

Do you think they were responsible for the Baghdad battery?

Marduk
7th February 2011, 06:21 PM
Do you think they were responsible for the Baghdad battery?

that was Wilhelm König
:D

GeeMack
7th February 2011, 06:30 PM
that was Wilhelm König
:D


... or maybe Walter Koenig.

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 06:37 PM
Once again... why would a race of whateverthehells, who are more technologically advance than even we are today, apply their advanced technology to something as pointless and primitive as building not-particularly-sophisticated rock structures?

This isn't a question I'm asking in order to be deliberately disrespectful of the whateverthehells. It's a legitimate, logical question. Why did the heavenlywhatevers apply their extremely advanced technology to the extremely primitive task of building rudimentary structures out of stone?

Why does anyone build something with extraordinary features?

Why is the Sears Tower so tall?

People choose their building designs and techniques for ANY number of reasons.

The simplest answer to your question is, "Because they could."

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 06:43 PM
Could you walk us through the thought process that takes you from "work/craft" to "heavenly agents"?

We all agree that there are things in the world that are hard to explain. The part that I'm missing is this:

1. Premise: There are things that are hard to explain
2. THIS IS THE MISSING PART
3. Conclusion: Heavenly agents

This is what I call a non-sequitur. What do you call it?

That was NOT the premise I started with.

Ignoring what I have said, and making up your own argument, then attributing that argument to 'me', is pathetically intellectually dishonest.

Stop.

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 06:44 PM
Do you think they were responsible for the Baghdad battery?

I don't know.

RoboTimbo
7th February 2011, 06:50 PM
I don't know.

Why can't you convince yourself that you know all about that too?

Sean84
7th February 2011, 06:51 PM
<snip>
Why is the Sears Tower so tall?
<snip>
Office space. Do research next time.

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 06:52 PM
Why can't you convince yourself that you know all about that too?

I know only of what I have seen evidence of...

Sean84
7th February 2011, 06:58 PM
That was NOT the premise I started with.

Ignoring what I have said, and making up your own argument, then attributing that argument to 'me', is pathetically intellectually dishonest.

Stop.

How's this?

1. Premise: Aliens will make everything better.
2. Screw you, I won't explain it.
3. Look up.

RoboTimbo
7th February 2011, 07:02 PM
I know only of what I have seen evidence of...

Baghdad Battery

Now you have as much evidence as you do about Puma Punku. So, do you think they were responsible for the Baghdad battery?

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 07:02 PM
How's this?

1. Premise: Aliens will make everything better.
2. Screw you, I won't explain it.
3. Look up.

SURPRISE... not even close.

carlitos
7th February 2011, 07:09 PM
King, when you post for 10 years, and everyone can't understand your point, you should really wonder what it is you are accomplishing here.

Your argument (as I understand it) is:

There are things you don't understand - lights in the sky, carvings from history, etc. - and from this lack of understanding on your part you have concluded that gods used to live here, and they left 'for the heavens' at some point. Is that accurate?

Are you even aware of the term argument from incredulity?

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 07:10 PM
Baghdad Battery

Now you have as much evidence as you do about Puma Punku. So, do you think they were responsible for the Baghdad battery?

First, I never said 'they' were responsible for building Puma Punku, I said an as of yet unfound 'advanced technology' was.

That said, I don't know who was responsible for the Bagdad battery, or what it was used for.

RoboTimbo
7th February 2011, 07:13 PM
First, I never said 'they' were responsible for building Puma Punku, I said an as of yet unfound 'advanced technology' was.

That said, I don't know who was responsible for the Bagdad battery, or what it was used for.

Then what is this evidence you say that you have for 'them' if not Puma Punku as you've been going on about?

Psiload
7th February 2011, 07:15 PM
Why does anyone build something with extraordinary features?

Why is the Sears Tower so tall?

Because the people who designed and built the Sears Tower were building to impress using the most advanced materials and building technology available at the time.

People choose their building designs and techniques for ANY number of reasons.

The simplest answer to your question is, "Because they could."

The heavenly visitors could have built a high tech building out of stainless steel or plexiglass... because they could. But instead we see a rudimentary structure made from just about the most primitive building material of all.

Far more impressive structures had been built by humans long before the heavenly visitors built their structures at Puma Punku. The Colosseum had been standing in Rome for a thousand years before the structures were built at Puma Punku. I've seen the Colosseum... the structures at Puma Punku are no Colosseum.

Why? Why were the heavenly visitors such slackers that they couldn't even be bothered to come close to the extraordinary human building accomplishments of a thousand years earlier?

Were they NOT building to impress?

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 07:15 PM
King, when you post for 10 years, and everyone can't understand your point, you should really wonder what it is you are accomplishing here.

Your argument (as I understand it) is:

There are things you don't understand - lights in the sky, carvings from history, etc. - and from this lack of understanding on your part you have concluded that gods used to live here, and they left 'for the heavens' at some point. Is that accurate?

Are you even aware of the term argument from incredulity?

So, why do you believe Santa Claus built the World Trade Center Towers, that so stupid. Where's your evidence for such a moronic conclusion?

Oh, that ISN'T your stance, and I'm just making stuff up, and saying that's what your stance is???

Well that's your fault.

Yeah_Right
7th February 2011, 07:16 PM
I think that KoTA doesn't quite know what he's saying, or he's making it up as he goes along.

carlitos
7th February 2011, 07:16 PM
Ya think?

Psiload
7th February 2011, 07:18 PM
First, I never said 'they' were responsible for building Puma Punku, I said an as of yet unfound 'advanced technology' was.

That said, I don't know who was responsible for the Bagdad battery, or what it was used for.

Wow... some world-class caliber backpedalling going on here. Lance Armstrong is getting nervous.

Yeah_Right
7th February 2011, 07:18 PM
Okay I think I have it, the advanced tech, that was responsible for Puma Punku was used by the natives? That is the only conclusion if the Corn Gods weren't responsible.

Sean84
7th February 2011, 07:19 PM
SURPRISE... not even close.

Really?

1. You believe in aliens and that they caused the stupid brown people* to ascend to some higher plane of existence. Now you want them to come back.
...or ultimate ascension.

2. You rudely dismissed me rather than explain anything.

3. Despite the dishonesty of your first post you've now made it clear that this thread is all about your petition to get people to look up.

Where did I go wrong?

Yeah_Right
7th February 2011, 07:20 PM
Oh, and they, the Corn Gods, came back and took the rented advanced tech, and took off to the heavens?

carlitos
7th February 2011, 07:20 PM
KotA, I have above-average reading comprehension. 99th percentile on those tests that you take in school back in the day. I am telling you what I understand your point to be based on the words you type in these boxes.

If you want me to understand your argument in a different way, then make it in a different way. My brain works just fine. I'm completely honest. I don't understand your argument, other than as wide-eyed incredulity: Wow - I can't understand that, therefore gods.

If you would like to disabuse me of this notion, then please, for the love of God, explain your point in words that I (and apparently everyone else here) can understand. Do it, man.

GeeMack
7th February 2011, 07:42 PM
KotA, I have above-average reading comprehension. 99th percentile on those tests that you take in school back in the day. I am telling you what I understand your point to be based on the words you type in these boxes.

If you want me to understand your argument in a different way, then make it in a different way. My brain works just fine. I'm completely honest. I don't understand your argument, other than as wide-eyed incredulity: Wow - I can't understand that, therefore gods.

If you would like to disabuse me of this notion, then please, for the love of God, explain your point in words that I (and apparently everyone else here) can understand. Do it, man.


Indeed. When someone is trying to communicate an idea, and nobody is understanding the communication, it is the responsibility of the person who is attempting to express the notion to remedy the problem with their communication. We're way past 1000 posts in this thread and the OP has yet to pose any argument that even makes sense to everyone else.

Weak Kitten
7th February 2011, 07:54 PM
I know nothing about them, other than they exist and are more technologically advanced than we are. Oh, and people have seen them in our heavens since we could write on walls.

Then why do you keep saying that they are not aliens but rather that they originally came from this planet? What information led you to that rather detailed conclusion?

Pure Argent
7th February 2011, 08:24 PM
Because I've seen their work/craft, in action.

I know nothing about them, other than they exist and are more technologically advanced than we are. Oh, and people have seen them in our heavens since we could write on walls.

Those works are IMPOSSIBLE with rudimentary tools. The work required an as of yet unfound 'advanced technology'.

How do you know?

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 09:02 PM
Wow... some world-class caliber backpedalling going on here. Lance Armstrong is getting nervous.

Check the record, that's what I said.

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 09:06 PM
Okay I think I have it, the advanced tech, that was responsible for Puma Punku was used by the natives? ....

This could well have been what happened.

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 09:08 PM
Really?

1. You believe in aliens and that they caused the stupid brown people* to ascend to some higher plane of existence. Now you want them to come back.


2. You rudely dismissed me rather than explain anything.

3. Despite the dishonesty of your first post you've now made it clear that this thread is all about your petition to get people to look up.

Where did I go wrong?

I do not believe in aliens, for starters.

Sean84
7th February 2011, 09:18 PM
I do not believe in aliens, for starters.

Sure ya do. Read the thread.

Pure Argent
7th February 2011, 09:22 PM
Sure ya do. Read the thread.

Ah, but his aliens are special, and they shouldn't be called aliens, 'cause they're from Earth.

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 09:25 PM
KotA, I have above-average reading comprehension. 99th percentile on those tests that you take in school back in the day. I am telling you what I understand your point to be based on the words you type in these boxes.

If you want me to understand your argument in a different way, then make it in a different way. My brain works just fine. I'm completely honest. I don't understand your argument, other than as wide-eyed incredulity: Wow - I can't understand that, therefore gods.

If you would like to disabuse me of this notion, then please, for the love of God, explain your point in words that I (and apparently everyone else here) can understand. Do it, man.

"Wow, look at those craft perform those feats that defy modern flight characteristics...no human craft is capable of melding together with another to form a 4-fold larger version of themselves."

What I concluded was that I just witnessed evidence of a non-human advanced technology, in the heavens. THEY exist.

I have seen any number of different airplanes, I've lived near both civilian and military airports, and I've flown in large airliners and small single engine craft. I can usually identify the style or type of craft in the air, and I know the difference between a satellite and a meteor.

I saw star-like objects make right angle turns while maintaining a constant 'speed'...OUR most capable aircraft are NOT capable of such maneuvers.

I do NOT propose to know who was piloting these non-human U.F.O.'s, but I saw a half a dozen of them fly in coordination with each other.

I KNOW what I saw was the result of a non-human advanced technology controlled by an intelligence.

That's it, nothing more, nothing less.

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 09:42 PM
Sure ya do. Read the thread.

I wrote half of this thread. You clearly have not read it.

I do not believe in aliens.

GeeMack
7th February 2011, 09:50 PM
"Wow, look at those craft perform those feats that defy modern flight characteristics...no human craft is capable of melding together with another to form a 4-fold larger version of themselves."

What I concluded was that I just witness evidence of a non-human advanced technology, in the heavens. THEY exist.

I have seen any number of different airplanes, I've lived near both civilian and military airports, and I've flown in large airliners and small single engine craft. I can usually identify the style or type of craft in the air, and I know the difference between a satellite and a meteor.

I saw star-like objects make right angle turns while maintaining a constant velocity...OUR aircraft are incapable of these maneuvers.

I do NOT propose to know who was piloting these non-human U.F.O.'s, but I saw a half a dozen of them fly in coordination with each other.

I KNOW what I saw was the result of a non-human advanced technology controlled by an intelligence.

That's it, nothing more, nothing less.


Your expertise and honesty have both been shown to be severely lacking. Your memory has been shown to be fallible, extremely. As far as being a credible description of a genuine event, your anecdote has been shown time and again in this and at least one other thread to be one big pile of fail.

King of the Americas
7th February 2011, 09:54 PM
Ah, but his aliens are special, and they shouldn't be called aliens, 'cause they're from Earth.

They shouldn't be called aliens, because the COULD be from here, and have ALWAYS ben in our heavens.

There is no need to require that they be from another star system, to make them indeed "alien". Although, if they came from another planet, or a moon from somewhere in our solar system, that might make them certainly non-earthly.

The point I've repeatedly tried to make is that they have always been in our heavens, for as long as history has recorded. They aren't from anywhere else, because they've always been 'up there'.

aggle-rithm
7th February 2011, 10:27 PM
That was NOT the premise I started with.


Then for the love of God, please, I'm begging you, TELL US WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING.

HOW do you conclude that there are heavenly beings hiding somewhere nearby?


Ignoring what I have said, and making up your own argument, then attributing that argument to 'me', is pathetically intellectually dishonest.

Stop.

It's more pathetically intellectually dishonest, IMO, to pretend that you have made a point when you haven't, then accuse others of ignoring this point you have utterly failed to make.

MAKE YOUR POINT. Clearly, simply, honestly. If you don't know, then just say, "I don't know."

aggle-rithm
7th February 2011, 10:29 PM
The point I've repeatedly tried to make is that they have always been in our heavens, for as long as history has recorded. They aren't from anywhere else, because they've always been 'up there'.

We get that. What we don't get is HOW DID YOU COME TO THIS CONCLUSION? Spell it out, please.

gambling_cruiser
8th February 2011, 12:52 AM
Well said.

dlorde
8th February 2011, 04:57 AM
That is a HUGE leap of logic.

Logic? I must have missed that bit...

Waterman
8th February 2011, 06:18 AM
I have some theories, what about these?
...

Whee that was fun.

^Repeat post^

It was less funny the second time...

QUOTE=King of the Americas] 'They' have been called by MANY names, NONE of which can be verified. I don't know what 'they' are either, nor where they live, or what they purpose to do.

I know only that they exist. <snip> [/QUOTE]

I know nothing about them, other than they exist and are more technologically advanced than we are. <snip>

Well yea it was a repeat post. You ignored it the first time. Wasn’t that the point of your opening post to assume they exist and speculate on what would get them to descend? Well that all depends on what you assume their nature is. At best you have the existence of things that we can’t explain and have unknown origin. In addition you have ancient peoples that did things using techniques that we do not yet know (be they mundane or not). Even if we grant for the sake of argument that they are out there somewhere we know NOTHING about their motivations and you admit that neither do you. We can’t even firmly establish any property about them beyond the basic assumption we have allowing for the sake of argument, 1. they exist and 2. they are of prehuman terrestrial origin.

You seem to hold that they some altruistic creature that is just sitting there waiting for the day that we ask them to join us for conversation or friendly competition.

The implicit arguments you have provided in support of this altruistic nature is that there are ancient stone buildings and monuments that are either so large, so hard or so precise that it was not something that ancient man was not capable of doing on his own.

That is all you have about their own motivations. It is speculations with some very big unfounded assumptions that have been granted for the sake of the argument.

Why do assume they are keeping an eye on us, waiting for the day that we will be worth talking to. Heck if they spend anything watching cable TV and tune into the ‘real’ housewives, survivor and other’ reality shows’ they are going to realize that for the most part we haven’t got anything meaningful to say or at least the vast majority of us aren’t listening to anything meaningful. If they tune into the news they will likes see that we are a not ready for membership in the greater galactic community as we are still battling over small plots of land and wiping our large numbers of our brethren singly and in groups all over the world.

Correa Neto
8th February 2011, 06:33 AM
Oh, Sears Tower... OK.

What would we find at its hypothetical ruins?
Concrete, steel, alluminium, glass, several bits and pieces of technology (lamps, computers, cell phones, forks, knives, TVs, Ipods, etc.). The tools used to build it would also leave its marks (welding seams, abbrasion marks for polishing dishes, marks of modern saws and powered drilling tools with vidia or carbide bits, etc.). Now, can you find similar things at the remains of the folks at Tiwanaku, Machu Picchu, all the Maya and Toltec cities, ancient Egypt?

Heck, Tiwanaku, Maya and Inca folks as far as I know could not even build a round arch! It seems they never went beyond the flat arches... Very modern.

And what about the remains of folks who built it and lived or worked there?
Lots of evidences of modern medical tech. Prosthetics, teeth fillings, pacemakers, surgical pins, etc. Now, can you find similar things at the remains of the folks at Tiwanaku, Machu Picchu, all the Maya and Toltec cities, ancient Egypt?

So, please tell point me a single site with REAL evidence for modern technology.

King of the Americas
8th February 2011, 06:43 AM
We get that. What we don't get is HOW DID YOU COME TO THIS CONCLUSION? Spell it out, please.

H-I-S-T-O-R-Y...

From ancient cave paintings, myths, religious tales, paintings, pictures, and videos. "Heaven agents" have been portrayed in EVERY form of media man hath created.

That some can't, won't, and don't interpret these things AS the same phenomena responsible for modern U.F.O.'s is flatly incorrect.

aggle-rithm
8th February 2011, 07:08 AM
H-I-S-T-O-R-Y...

From ancient cave paintings, myths, religious tales, paintings, pictures, and videos. "Heaven agents" have been portrayed in EVERY form of media man hath created.

That some can't, won't, and don't interpret these things AS the same phenomena responsible for modern U.F.O.'s is flatly incorrect.

So it's the way YOU interpret history.

Do you apply any sort of rigor to this interpretation? Do you attempt to falsify your assumptions? Do you consider alternate explanations (such as, "the things portrayed in cave paintings, myths, religious tales, paintings, pictures, and videos may not all be the same phenomena")?

That's the sort of thing we're looking for. And, for future reference, that's the sort of thing we're ALWAYS looking for at this skeptic's forum. Anything less, and it's just your uninformed opinion.

King of the Americas
8th February 2011, 07:19 AM
So it's the way YOU interpret history.

Do you apply any sort of rigor to this interpretation? Do you attempt to falsify your assumptions? Do you consider alternate explanations (such as, "the things portrayed in cave paintings, myths, religious tales, paintings, pictures, and videos may not all be the same phenomena")?

That's the sort of thing we're looking for. And, for future reference, that's the sort of thing we're ALWAYS looking for at this skeptic's forum. Anything less, and it's just your uninformed opinion.

I hold that this IS 'one' possibility, that happens to fit with what I've seen and experienced.

NEVER have I said there is conclusive proof of this finding.

I conclude that to ignore ALL the anecdotes and other historical imagery is flatly foolish.

Ignore reports from your fellow man at the peril of timely truth.

aggle-rithm
8th February 2011, 07:23 AM
You and your 'experts', have NOT seen what I have, and ignore facts that don't fit their conclusion.


Given the fact that human memory is extremely fallible, subject to change over time, and impossible to subjectively evaluate for accuracy (all verified by scientific studies), why should we trust the accuracy of your memories? You yourself don't know whether they are accurate or not, unless you have a photographic memory. Do you?

Correa Neto
8th February 2011, 07:27 AM
"Ignore reports from your fellow man at the peril of timely truth."

Yep. When they start to feast on your meat, you will remember my words.

Actually, its more likely that that decades later and still with no reliable evidence of skygods, you will start to realize the tipe and energy you spent for nothing. And you will regret ignoring what your fellow men told you.

Correa Neto
8th February 2011, 07:31 AM
"Ignore reports from your fellow man at the peril of timely truth."

Actually WTF this is supposed to mean?

I will not receive the benefits belivers will get when "they" reveal "them"selves?

I will be punished by disagreeing with and mocking their great prophet?

I will become a second-class citizen?

KotA, you are sounding more and more like a biblical fundamentalist.

aggle-rithm
8th February 2011, 07:33 AM
I hold that this IS 'one' possibility, that happens to fit with what I've seen and experienced.


That's why it's so important for a scientific theory to have predictive power and to be falsifiable. There are many, MANY possible scenarios that are consistent with any given set of data. That's not enough. Other possible explanations need to be considered.

Your theory about heavenly agents has explanatory power. So does my theory about the origin of newspapers. They are regurgitated every morning by giant lizards. How do I know this? Look around your neighborhood early in the morning. What do you see? NEWSPAPERS! Hence, giant regurgitating lizards.

If I was REALLY interested in knowing the truth, I would ask myself: If the giant lizards did not exist, HOW WOULD I KNOW? That turns the question on its heel and allows for alternate hypotheses to be considered.

Maybe I could get up really early and try to catch them. The fact that I see paper boys delivering newspapers and no lizards doesn't prove anything. It only means that THOSE PARTICULAR papers weren't regurgitated by lizards.

In this case, there is really no way to test the null hypothesis. Therefore, the theory is unfalsifiable, and scientifically worthless. That's why I asked you earlier: If the heavenly agents did not exist, then HOW WOULD YOU KNOW? What would that look like?

You couldn't or wouldn't answer.


I conclude that to ignore ALL the anecdotes and other historical imagery is flatly foolish.


And I conclude that it is much more foolish to take anecdotes and historical imagery at face value.

King of the Americas
8th February 2011, 07:38 AM
Given the fact that human memory is extremely fallible, subject to change over time, and impossible to subjectively evaluate for accuracy (all verified by scientific studies), why should we trust the accuracy of your memories? You yourself don't know whether they are accurate or not, unless you have a photographic memory. Do you?

^THIS^ is where skepticism goes off the tracks, for me.

NO ONE is capable of remembering anything accurately, the "You shouldn't trust your eyes.", argument.

I trust my senses and reason daily, and yet I still live. Truly an amazing feat to skeptics, yet MOST people get along just fine 'trusting their senses'.

It is flatly STUPID to demand absolute proof of something, before taking action.

Cuddles
8th February 2011, 07:45 AM
I'm just making stuff up

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=622&pictureid=4292

aggle-rithm
8th February 2011, 07:54 AM
It is flatly STUPID to demand absolute proof of something, before taking action.

I would agree, if you were talking about KNOWN ENTITIES such as house fires or hurricanes. We know these things exist. We have experienced them.

What we're talking about here is not a known entity, but a complete confabulation on your part. In this case, the burden of proof falls on you to show that they exist...it's therefore quite reasonable to demand absolute proof.

aggle-rithm
8th February 2011, 07:56 AM
I conclude that to ignore ALL the anecdotes and other historical imagery is flatly foolish.


Here is some historical imagery. Should we accept them at face value? If not, then why not?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/51464d51575561e00.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/51464d51579ecc3e2.jpg

RoboTimbo
8th February 2011, 08:03 AM
I have never been able to summon them...that will take half the world, at least.

You continue to assert that you know nothing about them other than they exist. So, how did you come by the knowledge that the bolded above is true?

King of the Americas
8th February 2011, 08:10 AM
"Ignore reports from your fellow man at the peril of timely truth."

Actually WTF this is supposed to mean?

I will not receive the benefits belivers will get when "they" reveal "them"selves?

I will be punished by disagreeing with and mocking their great prophet?

I will become a second-class citizen?

KotA, you are sounding more and more like a biblical fundamentalist.

There was a scenario within this thread wherein a 'skeptic' military leader is faced with a report from a single anecdotal source of lightly guarded artillery about to launch an attack. Needing "verification", the leader chooses to send out more scouts, rather than act upon the initial report.

Skepticism cost the leader his defensive walls.

Timely truth and skepticism are at odds with one another.

In another real world scenario, the first guy to go to the bottom of the ocean comes back with reports of "lights" at depth. Skeptics accused the man of hallucinations... It would take years of research to verify that he guy DID in fact see 'lights', down there. We know now that they are bioluminescent fish.

So, now you are faced with me, and my report of yet 'unproven' or unverified "non-human advanced technology behind U.F.O.'s"... I have some experience in and around all sorts of terrestrial craft, and no history of hallucinations or failure of my senses to relay accurate information about my surroundings.

You can accept my report, and the truth that "They exist.", or you can wait for verification.

The fact that they DO exist is not conditional upon your acceptance, however.

Refusing to accept mine, and other reports won't provide you timely truth...

King of the Americas
8th February 2011, 08:14 AM
...

And I conclude that it is much more foolish to take anecdotes and historical imagery at face value.

I don't take them at 'face value'...

I don't believe they are "God", angels, demons, or any other religious icon.

They are merely more technologically advanced than we are.

dafydd
8th February 2011, 08:16 AM
It is flatly STUPID to demand absolute proof of something, before taking action.

So if I told you to jump over a wall,you wouldn't ask how big the drop was on the other side? A very sensible philosophy.

dafydd
8th February 2011, 08:17 AM
I don't take them at 'face value'...

I don't believe they are "God", angels, demons, or any other religious icon.

They are merely more technologically advanced than we are.

There is no proof of ''they''. What does the U in UFO stand for?

Psiload
8th February 2011, 08:17 AM
You continue to assert that you know nothing about them other than they exist. So, how did you come by the knowledge that the bolded above is true?


Or how about this one?

Knowledge of them will catapult mankind forward into an unimaginable future.


How did you come by this knowledge?

If this is mere speculation on your part, rather than actual knowledge, then how is your speculation any more valid than that of the people who speculate that knowledge of "them" will spell NO more future for mankind?

King of the Americas
8th February 2011, 08:25 AM
So if I told you to jump over a wall,you wouldn't ask how big the drop was on the other side? A very sensible philosophy.

I'd LOOK with my own eyes, then use my experience to determine whether or not to leap or not.

I would not require repeated testing, or conclusive proof, before deciding upon a course of action.

If I were being chased by an axe wielding killer, and the drop looked like 8-12 feet, I'd give it a go. Waiting until I verified that I could indeed survive the fall would be stupid...

King of the Americas
8th February 2011, 08:26 AM
You continue to assert that you know nothing about them other than they exist. So, how did you come by the knowledge that the bolded above is true?

I told you. It is a theory of mine.

RoboTimbo
8th February 2011, 08:28 AM
If I were being chased by an axe wielding killer, and the drop looked like 8-12 feet, I'd give it a go. Waiting until I verified that I could indeed survive the fall would be stupid...

Unfortunately, you died. The "axe wielding killer" was coming to your rescue from the ogre on the other side of the wall. You ran straight into his slavering jaws.

Psiload
8th February 2011, 08:30 AM
I told you. It is a theory of mine.

Will you admit that your theory could be absolutely wrong?

With that in mind... do you think it's a bit foolish to expect half of the world's population to participate in a spectacle based upon nothing more than one of your pet theories?

A bit conceited? A bit presumptuous maybe? Arrogant? Delusions of grandeur perhaps?

RoboTimbo
8th February 2011, 08:32 AM
I told you. It is a theory of mine.

I told you it isn't a theory. It's a WAG.

For future ease of use, how are we to distinguish you asserting your fantasies as reality from actual reality as observed by everyone else?

King of the Americas
8th February 2011, 08:32 AM
There is no proof of ''they''. What does the U in UFO stand for?

I never said there was "proof"...

There weren't proof of bioluminescent fish, when the first report of such things emerged, either. But their existence wasn't conditional upon such proof.

The "U" stands for unidentified. It does NOT stand for unseen, unreal, unheard of, or any other not real U-word you can summon.

I've never claimed anything more than "They exist." I DON'T know what they are, where they live, or what they purpose to do.

King of the Americas
8th February 2011, 08:33 AM
Will you admit that your theory could be absolutely wrong?

With that in mind... do you think it's a bit foolish to expect half of the world's population to participate in a spectacle based upon nothing more than one of your pet theories?

A bit conceited? A bit presumptuous maybe? Arrogant? Delusions of grandeur perhaps?

Yes.

No.

No.

bruto
8th February 2011, 08:34 AM
They shouldn't be called aliens, because the COULD be from here, and have ALWAYS ben in our heavens.

There is no need to require that they be from another star system, to make them indeed "alien". Although, if they came from another planet, or a moon from somewhere in our solar system, that might make them certainly non-earthly.

The point I've repeatedly tried to make is that they have always been in our heavens, for as long as history has recorded. They aren't from anywhere else, because they've always been 'up there'.Let's get this nonsense straight here. The term "alien" does not mean "from the stars." If they're not living here on earth, they're aliens. It doesn't matter where you think their ancestors might have come from. Are they earth dwellers now? NO? Then they're aliens. Are they ordinary human beings? NO? They're not from here. They're not us. They're aliens. That's what the word means!

Psiload
8th February 2011, 08:35 AM
I never said there was "proof"...

There weren't proof of bioluminescent fish, when the first report of such things emerged, either. But their existence wasn't conditional upon such proof.

The "U" stands for unidentified. It does NOT stand for unseen, unreal, unheard of, or any other not real U-word you can summon.

I've never claimed anything more than "They exist." I DON'T know what they are, where they live, or what they purpose to do.


Did it take half of the world's population gazing oceanward for the bioluminescent fish to reveal themselves?

Psiload
8th February 2011, 08:40 AM
Yes.

No.

No.

I'm sorry... but expecting half the world's population to participate in a spectacle based upon someone's pet theory(a theory which that someone admits could be absolutely wrong)... that, my friend, is the very definition of a conceited, foolish, arrogant delusion of grandeur.

King of the Americas
8th February 2011, 08:42 AM
Let's get this nonsense straight here. The term "alien" does not mean "from the stars." If they're not living here on earth, they're aliens. It doesn't matter where you think their ancestors might have come from. Are they earth dwellers now? NO? Then they're aliens. Are they ordinary human beings? NO? They're not from here. They're not us. They're aliens. That's what the word means!

Okay, one of the things skeptics hang their hat on is that 'they' couldn't possibly exist because the distance between us and the nearest star is just too far to travel, just to buzz a few rednecks.

'I' don't find that it necessary that they be 'from' anywhere else. They could be from right here.

That said, I have no problem with the term E.T., as they are no longer 'here', but rather 'up there'.

Alien is something you'd have to prove...

aggle-rithm
8th February 2011, 08:45 AM
There weren't proof of bioluminescent fish, when the first report of such things emerged, either. But their existence wasn't conditional upon such proof.


What you're proposing isn't bioluminescent fish.

I saw a show last night that made me think of your heavenly agents hypothesis, because on the surface it seems to be a very similar proposition.

When scientists a few decades ago were calculating the mass of galaxies, they found that the mass of all the stars and dust wasn't sufficient to keep the galaxy from flying apart. One scientist solved the problem by proposing the existence of dark matter.

Today most scientists accept the existence of this type of matter, even though they have never seen it nor do they have any idea what it may be like. The reason they believe in it is that the universe makes no sense any other way. If dark matter doesn't exist, then we must substitute something else with exactly the same properties. We may as well call this dark matter as well.

How is your hypothesis different? Easy...the universe makes perfect sense without the existence of heavenly agents. Everything you cite as evidence for them can be explained by something else, even if it's just a different woo explanation. This leaves us asking the question: With all these possible explanations, why choose THIS one?

I can only conclude that you have an emotional attachment to your particular conclusion. There is no rational series of steps from "unknown phenomena" to "heavenly agents".

carlitos
8th February 2011, 08:45 AM
You do realize that we know what's "up there" don't you? There isn't any place for the ET gods to hide.

King of the Americas
8th February 2011, 08:47 AM
I'm sorry... but expecting half the world's population to participate in a spectacle based upon someone's pet theory(a theory which that someone admits could be absolutely wrong)... that, my friend, is the very definition of a conceited, foolish, arrogant delusion of grandeur.

It COULD be right, and deliver unto mankind, a new age.

All that we have to lose is our illusions.

Don't hate, participate.

RoboTimbo
8th February 2011, 08:49 AM
I withdraw this question:
For future ease of use, how are we to distinguish you asserting your fantasies as reality from actual reality as observed by everyone else?
And ask instead:

How do you distinguish your fantasies from actual reality as observed by everyone else?

King of the Americas
8th February 2011, 08:49 AM
...

...With all these possible explanations, why choose THIS one?

...

Because I've seen them.

carlitos
8th February 2011, 08:52 AM
Someone with a fast Camaro might be familiar with these not-so-heavenly agents.

yQPsuMMW6Qc

King of the Americas
8th February 2011, 08:53 AM
I withdraw this question:

And ask instead:

How do you distinguish your fantasies from actual reality as observed by everyone else?

I've SEEN things they haven't.

aggle-rithm
8th February 2011, 08:54 AM
It COULD be right, and deliver unto mankind, a new age.


How do you know they wouldn't deliver unto mankind wholesale destruction, disease, and death?

Or is THAT the new age you're talking about?

aggle-rithm
8th February 2011, 08:56 AM
Because I've seen them.

And again I ask:

HOW DO YOU KNOW you've correctly identified them?


Let's take a different approach.

You say you know they exist. What properties do they have? You mentioned advanced technology and a desire to help mankind. That's pretty specific. Where did you get this information from?

King of the Americas
8th February 2011, 08:58 AM
Someone with a fast Camaro might be familiar with these not-so-heavenly agents.

yQPsuMMW6Qc

Indeed.

I got pulled over more times in that car, than all the other times before or after combined.

Talk about a cop magnet. One day, I was pulled over twice before noon, for traveling 60 mph in a 55 zone, on an interstate! Neither officer gave me a ticket, and let me go with a warning. I think the wheelchair provides me a little insulation from some ticketing.

Psiload
8th February 2011, 09:00 AM
Here's my pet theory...

Given the track record of the previous civilizations who had knowledge of, and interaction with, the heavenly visitors; The Mayans, The Ancient Egyptians, The Incas, and The Tiwanaku... all civilizations which subsequently collapsed and ceased to exist.

Therefore...

I propose that at the next Olympic games, half the world's population should pause and extend a middle finger skyward.

King of the Americas
8th February 2011, 09:07 AM
And again I ask:

HOW DO YOU KNOW you've correctly identified them?


Let's take a different approach.

You say you know they exist. What properties do they have? You mentioned advanced technology and a desire to help mankind. That's pretty specific. Where did you get this information from?

They performed maneuvers beyond that of known aircraft capability.

I have thus far been unable to positively identify what I saw, thus the U.F.O. tag.

Not being able to conclude what they were specifically, is NOT me saying I couldn't see what flight patterns they took.

Melding together to form a 4-fold larger version of themselves is advanced.

Honestly, I don't KNOW what their purpose is. One ASSUMPTION is that they are watching us, like our scientists watch wildlife, studying them in an attempt to know what preserves them.

Psiload
8th February 2011, 09:07 AM
It COULD be right, and deliver unto mankind, a new age.

Or, as historical precedence has demonstrated, interacting with the heavenly visitors WOULD garner us a few primitive stone structures, and an ultimate collapse of our civilization.

Why do you speculate on a bright future resulting from contact with the heavenly visitors, when history supports quite the opposite outcome?

King of the Americas
8th February 2011, 09:12 AM
How do you know they wouldn't deliver unto mankind wholesale destruction, disease, and death?

Or is THAT the new age you're talking about?

Well, if that's their purpose, then there's little we could do, anyway.

Inviting them for some friendly competition couldn't hurt.

carlitos
8th February 2011, 09:19 AM
Melding together to form a 4-fold larger version of themselves is advanced.Kittens with flashlights dangling from their collars could replicate the trick with the light. Not very advanced, eh?

RoboTimbo
8th February 2011, 09:20 AM
I've SEEN things they haven't.

Oh, that's right. You saw an "axe wielding murderer". Pity about you dying because of your misperception.

King of the Americas
8th February 2011, 09:21 AM
Kittens with flashlights dangling from their collars could replicate the trick with the light. Not very advanced, eh?

Airborne kittens with flashlights dangling from their collars, "over the Red River", performing 90 degree turns without slowing down would be advanced, eh?

carlitos
8th February 2011, 09:27 AM
Now you're moving the goalposts. I explained one optical illusion that could explain "four fold" - two or more lights converging. Like spotlights reflected on a cloud.

I also explained how one could see red / blue oscillations in the night sky - cop lights. (a detail you have apparently added to your story in recent years, to explain away geese)

You seem to "know" what you saw like a fundamentalist "knows" Jesus.

King of the Americas
8th February 2011, 09:34 AM
Now you're moving the goalposts. I explained one optical illusion that could explain "four fold" - two or more lights converging. Like spotlights reflected on a cloud.

I also explained how one could see red / blue oscillations in the night sky - cop lights. (a detail you have apparently added to your story in recent years, to explain away geese)

You seem to "know" what you saw like a fundamentalist "knows" Jesus.

It was a clear night, and the "star-like objects" I saw were airborne.

I am not a fundamentalist.

GeeMack
8th February 2011, 09:52 AM
Airborne kittens with flashlights dangling from their collars, "over the Red River", performing 90 degree turns without slowing down would be advanced, eh?


It would be hallucinations. When you had this vision, did you get a toxicology workup at a competent medical facility? A complete physical exam? A thorough psychological exam? Unless we can rule out hallucinations there are too many holes in your story for it to be credible, especially given that you're a proven liar.

carlitos
8th February 2011, 09:54 AM
It was a clear night, and the "star-like objects" I saw were airborne.

I am not a fundamentalist.
Your story has holes in it big enough to fly a blimp through. If it was a cloud-free sky (vs. what you originally said) then there are a couple of million more things that your star-like objects could have been.

With regard to your interpretation of your story and history, you are a fundamentalist. It's the right word to describe your rejection of any and all alternative explanations. Why else would you ascribe ONE explanation - heavenly agents - to explain multiple, independent phenomena?


Carved stone from 900AD = heavenly agents' "advanced technology"
Tiwanaku civilization dwindles = heavenly agents left (and took their toys with them?)
Drawings on cave wall = heavenly agents depicted by cavemen
Ezekiel = heavenly agents described by bible author
Lights in the sky = heavenly agents seen by you and others


A critical thinker would entertain the possibility that these multiple, unrelated events could have multiple, unrelated explanations. Your stance is fundamentalist, in that you reject every alternative and can't / won't provide any scientific evidence for your own explanation.

Elizabeth I
8th February 2011, 09:58 AM
Do you apply any sort of rigor to this interpretation? Do you attempt to falsify your assumptions? Do you consider alternate explanations (such as, "the things portrayed in cave paintings, myths, religious tales, paintings, pictures, and videos may not all be the same phenomena")?
...or even real?

I told you. It is a theory of mine.
BASED ON WHAT? A theory has a basis of facts, not one anecdote of one thing you saw that you couldn't explain.

I've SEEN things they haven't.
Big deal and so what? I bet I've seen things you haven't seen. That doesn't mean the things I saw had some kind of magic behind them.

Let's get this nonsense straight here. The term "alien" does not mean "from the stars." If they're not living here on earth, they're aliens. It doesn't matter where you think their ancestors might have come from. Are they earth dwellers now? NO? Then they're aliens. Are they ordinary human beings? NO? They're not from here. They're not us. They're aliens. That's what the word means!
Damn furriners! :p

dlorde
8th February 2011, 10:02 AM
I've never claimed anything more than "They exist." I DON'T know what they are, where they live, or what they purpose to do.

Really? I thought you claimed that they're 'up there', and if more than half the world's population looked up they'd come down, and that they'd give us a massive technological boost, and they're not aliens, and they come from Earth, and they'd assisted some cultures with rock stacking, etc... ?

If those weren't claims, what were they?

aggle-rithm
8th February 2011, 10:38 AM
They performed maneuvers beyond that of known aircraft capability.


ASSUMING they were as large as you thought they were, as far away as you thought they were, in the configuration you thought they were, and that you remember the incident accurately.

Many people don't remember such things accurately. Why do you think you're different?


I have thus far been unable to positively identify what I saw, thus the U.F.O. tag.

Not being able to conclude what they were specifically, is NOT me saying I couldn't see what flight patterns they took.

Melding together to form a 4-fold larger version of themselves is advanced.


ONLY if you saw what you thought you saw! It is extremely difficult to interpret what you see up in the sky if it is something unfamiliar.

Do you KNOW how far away they were? If not, then there is no basis for saying that the maneuvers were impossible. Also, saying they did something "advanced" is begging the question; it assumes that you are looking at some technological display, when it may actually have been something very different.


Honestly, I don't KNOW what their purpose is. One ASSUMPTION is that they are watching us, like our scientists watch wildlife, studying them in an attempt to know what preserves them.

What is the basis for this assumption?

Keep in mind that you could not have made this one without a whole string of other assumptions (for instance, that what you saw had conscious intent behind it, that this conscious intent came from unknown, other-worldly creatures, and that these creatures have been around for a long time and continue to hang around today).

aggle-rithm
8th February 2011, 10:43 AM
Well, if that's their purpose, then there's little we could do, anyway.

Inviting them for some friendly competition couldn't hurt.

So if you acknowledge that it's possible they do not have the intentions that you clearly believe they have...can you admit that you're just making up the part about them ushering in a new age?

King of the Americas
8th February 2011, 10:45 AM
...

A critical thinker would entertain the possibility that these multiple, unrelated events could have multiple, unrelated explanations. Your stance is fundamentalist, in that you reject every alternative and can't / won't provide any scientific evidence for your own explanation.

I don't reject every alternative...

I am arguing that these unrelated events MIGHT in fact be the same thing(s), I saw with mine own eyes.

When you are face to face with evidence of an existence, disbelief is no longer an option.

They exist.

I report this as a truth, as of yet, unknown to you. Its reality is not dependent upon your acceptance.

aggle-rithm
8th February 2011, 10:48 AM
When you are face to face with evidence of an existence, disbelief is no longer an option.

They exist.

I report this as a truth, as of yet, unknown to you. Its reality is not dependent upon your acceptance.

Yeah, well, good luck with all that.

King of the Americas
8th February 2011, 10:53 AM
So if you acknowledge that it's possible they do not have the intentions that you clearly believe they have...can you admit that you're just making up the part about them ushering in a new age?

We live our lives by a certain standard, set of rules governing our day to day lives. When something new and different comes along, our lives are altered, even if only a little. While I have never bought a Britney Spears album, I know of her existence, and that she was/is a pop music icon. I could even say I'd probably recognize her in a crowd. And she was just one singer...

Something like 'first contact' with E.T. I think that would have a profound and lasting effect on the whole of the world.

I don't know what their intentions are or were, but if they meant us harm, I think they'd have done it by now.

dafydd
8th February 2011, 10:55 AM
We live our lives by a certain standard, set of rules governing our day to day lives. When something new and different comes along, our lives are altered, even if only a little. While I have never bought a Britney Spears album, I know of her existence, and that she was/is a pop music icon. I could even say I'd probably recognize her in a crowd. And she was just one singer...

Something like 'first contact' with E.T. I think that would have a profound and lasting effect on the whole of the world.

I don't know what their intentions are or were, but if they meant us harm, I think they'd have done it by now.

You really are hopeless at analogies. What does Britney Spears have to do with it? You've been pulling it out of your fundamental orifice again.

King of the Americas
8th February 2011, 11:03 AM
You've had ''them'' up there and down here at the same time,and they left but never left. I suppose that happens when you make it up as you go along.

Their inconsistency isn't my fault.

Psiload
8th February 2011, 11:09 AM
***snip***
Something like 'first contact' with E.T. I think that would have a profound and lasting effect on the whole of the world. ***snip***

Wha? First contact? Aren't we up to at least like 4th contact now?

Ancient Egyptians, Mayans, Incas, Tiwanakans...

Didn't they make contact with these civilizations? Or did they just sneak in when nobody was looking and do the rock scratching and stacking thing?

And if they did make direct contact with these civilizations, the effects seem to have been more on the level of barely detectable, rather than profound and lasting.

Are you basing your assumptions on ANYTHING other than your own personal speculations?

aggle-rithm
8th February 2011, 11:17 AM
Something like 'first contact' with E.T. I think that would have a profound and lasting effect on the whole of the world.


Yes, it would be nice. So would a new car for everyone. That doesn't make it true.


I don't know what their intentions are or were, but if they meant us harm, I think they'd have done it by now.

There's a simpler explanation for why they haven't attacked us, and it's the same reason Santa's elves haven't attacked us.

aggle-rithm
8th February 2011, 11:18 AM
Wha? First contact? Aren't we up to at least like 4th contact now?

Ancient Egyptians, Mayans, Incas, Tiwanakans...




Apparently, dark-skinned savages don't count.

King of the Americas
8th February 2011, 11:24 AM
...

And if they did make direct contact with these civilizations, the effects seem to have been more on the level of barely detectable, rather than profound and lasting.

Are you basing your assumptions on ANYTHING other than your own personal speculations?

I'd say Puma Punku is both profound and lasting.

Our ancient ancestors may have made contact, but we certainly haven't yet.

Marduk
8th February 2011, 11:27 AM
I'd say Puma Punku is both profound and lasting.


so why do archaeologists who've actually been there say its typical of the culture involved ?

oh yes of course, you know more about it because you've glanced at unsupported claims made by other losers
:rolleyes:

Our ancient ancestors may have made contact, but we certainly haven't yet.
genetics fail
:rolleyes:

dafydd
8th February 2011, 11:40 AM
Their inconsistency isn't my fault.

That must be the ultimate example of putting the cart before the horse. Have you considered a career in stand up comedy?

Psiload
8th February 2011, 11:55 AM
I'd say Puma Punku is both profound and lasting.

Our ancient ancestors may have made contact, but we certainly haven't yet.

How profound is Puma Punku if you can't attribute it to the work of the advanced technology of heavenly visitors with better than a "may have"?

It were indeed so profound, shouldn't it be a bit more definitive than a maybe?

One more question...

Regarding the motives of the heavenly visitors... might their designs include sapping and impurifying our precious bodily fluids? Any theories on that?

bruto
8th February 2011, 01:10 PM
Okay, one of the things skeptics hang their hat on is that 'they' couldn't possibly exist because the distance between us and the nearest star is just too far to travel, just to buzz a few rednecks.

'I' don't find that it necessary that they be 'from' anywhere else. They could be from right here.

That said, I have no problem with the term E.T., as they are no longer 'here', but rather 'up there'.

Alien is something you'd have to prove...Why would I have to prove that they're alien. Everything you say about them defines them as such. According to you, they've evolved in some way since they left the earth, and they don't live amongst us. That makes them aliens. The problem is not whether or not they're alien, it's whether or not you understand the meaning of the word.

GeeMack
8th February 2011, 01:22 PM
Why would I have to prove that they're alien. Everything you say about them defines them as such. According to you, they've evolved in some way since they left the earth, and they don't live amongst us. That makes them aliens. The problem is not whether or not they're alien, it's whether or not you understand the meaning of the word.


Absolutely. They're aliens. They aren't real. There's no evidence to suggest they actually exist. But given the descriptions offered and the claims made (unsupportable though they may be), "they" are definitively aliens.

carlitos
8th February 2011, 01:49 PM
I don't reject every alternative...

I am arguing that these unrelated events MIGHT in fact be the same thing(s), I saw with mine own eyes.

When you are face to face with evidence of an existence, disbelief is no longer an option.

They exist.

I report this as a truth, as of yet, unknown to you. Its reality is not dependent upon your acceptance.

Delusions of grandeur. How many people have you convinced of 'their' existence?

bruto
8th February 2011, 02:11 PM
Just a couple of clarifications here for KoA, just so we know we're speaking the same language. First, a typical definition of "alien," here from the Collins dictionary:

alien [ˈeɪljən ˈeɪlɪən]
n
1. (Law) a person owing allegiance to a country other than that in which he lives; foreigner
2. any being or thing foreign to the environment in which it now exists
3. (Literary & Literary Critical Terms) (in science fiction) a being from another world, sometimes specifically an extraterrestrial
adj
1. unnaturalized; foreign
2. having foreign allegiance alien territory
3. unfamiliar; strange an alien quality in a work of art
4. (postpositive and foll by to) repugnant or opposed (to) war is alien to his philosophy
5. (in science fiction) of or from another world
vb
(Law) (tr) Rare to transfer (property, etc.) to another
[from Latin aliēnus foreign, from alius other]

And from the same dictionary, only partial, since the first sense of the word is sufficient to convey the meaning:

fail1
vb
1. to be unsuccessful in an attempt (at something or to do something)

In all pertinent senses, the beings of which this thread is the purported subject are aliens. In any sense of an attempt to persuade anyone of your beliefs or induce anyone to act on your beliefs, you fail.

This is not to discourage you from continuing, because there is one area in which you have not yet failed: entertainment.

carlitos
8th February 2011, 02:19 PM
First they ignore you
Then they ridicule you
Then they look up
Then the alien corn gods show up to kick ass in the 220 hurdles

tsig
8th February 2011, 02:51 PM
I'd LOOK with my own eyes, then use my experience to determine whether or not to leap or not.

I would not require repeated testing, or conclusive proof, before deciding upon a course of action.

If I were being chased by an axe wielding killer, and the drop looked like 8-12 feet, I'd give it a go. Waiting until I verified that I could indeed survive the fall would be stupid...

But you would take time to look even with an ax wielding murderer chasing you?

BTW: where did he come from?

tsig
8th February 2011, 02:54 PM
I've SEEN things they haven't.

I've SEEN things you haven't.

tsig
8th February 2011, 03:01 PM
We live our lives by a certain standard, set of rules governing our day to day lives. When something new and different comes along, our lives are altered, even if only a little. While I have never bought a Britney Spears album, I know of her existence, and that she was/is a pop music icon. I could even say I'd probably recognize her in a crowd. And she was just one singer...

Something like 'first contact' with E.T. I think that would have a profound and lasting effect on the whole of the world.

I don't know what their intentions are or were, but if they meant us harm, I think they'd have done it by now.

Britany Spears an ET, that would explain so much.

King of the Americas
8th February 2011, 03:56 PM
Why would I have to prove that they're alien. Everything you say about them defines them as such. According to you, they've evolved in some way since they left the earth, and they don't live amongst us. That makes them aliens. The problem is not whether or not they're alien, it's whether or not you understand the meaning of the word.

If I took up permanent residence on the space station, and had kids. My kids would be E.T.'s but I wouldn't consider them alien to Earth.

At the very least they'd be Earth orbiters...

King of the Americas
8th February 2011, 04:00 PM
How profound is Puma Punku if you can't attribute it to the work of the advanced technology of heavenly visitors with better than a "may have"?

It were indeed so profound, shouldn't it be a bit more definitive than a maybe?

One more question...

Regarding the motives of the heavenly visitors... might their designs include sapping and impurifying our precious bodily fluids? Any theories on that?

No.

&

No.

I Ratant
8th February 2011, 04:36 PM
Britany Spears an ET, that would explain so much.
.
Like Dennis Rodman.... :)

bruto
8th February 2011, 04:52 PM
If I took up permanent residence on the space station, and had kids. My kids would be E.T.'s but I wouldn't consider them alien to Earth.

At the very least they'd be Earth orbiters...Perhaps, depending on how you define it, but truly permanent residence is inherent alienation, and there would be little question about, say, their great great great grandchildren. If after enough generations they had evolved, as you suggest your spacegods have (remember that this is a necessary dodge for distinguishing them from the gods who were so hungry for sacrifices of beating hearts and mass infusions of starved children), then they would be, without question, aliens.

dafydd
8th February 2011, 05:26 PM
Delusions of grandeur. How many people have you convinced of 'their' existence?

Less than one?

Psiload
8th February 2011, 05:31 PM
No.

&

No.

Okay, I see we've given up on the pretense of rational discussion, and
The King now proclaiming monosyllabic royal decrees.

I'll leave you to your folly, your highness.

Me... out.

carlitos
8th February 2011, 06:01 PM
That some can't, won't, and don't interpret these things AS the same phenomena responsible for modern U.F.O.'s is flatly incorrect.

Actually, it is exactly the same phenomena. When confronted with something they couldn't explain, people assumed gods. The difference is, most people have better information now. Primitive cultures had an excuse that you do not have.

GeeMack
8th February 2011, 06:16 PM
Actually, it is exactly the same phenomena. When confronted with something they couldn't explain, people assumed gods. The difference is, most people have better information now. Primitive cultures had an excuse that you most of us do not have.


Fixed that for you.

RoboTimbo
8th February 2011, 07:13 PM
KotA, do you look down on the indigenous people at Puma Punku because they attributed the things they didn't understand in nature to "gods"?

How about the people at Nazca? Were they smart enough to scrape away the top layer of desert surface all by themselves?

bruto
8th February 2011, 08:22 PM
Returning momentarily to a previous digression, I found this interesting page on the UNCONTACTED TRIBES (http://www.uncontactedtribes.org/brazilfootage). It does a pretty good job of explaining just what is meant by the term, and how uncontacted they might be. Note that "uncontacted" means no peaceful contact with the mainstream or dominant society, and that tribes currently uncontacted may even have foregone contact made by earlier generations.

The good news for most concerned with this issue, except of course for cultural chauvinists like KotA, is that the Peruvian government has weighed in. (http://www.uncontactedtribes.org/news/6956)

King of the Americas
9th February 2011, 05:29 AM
KotA, do you look down on the indigenous people at Puma Punku because they attributed the things they didn't understand in nature to "gods"?

How about the people at Nazca? Were they smart enough to scrape away the top layer of desert surface all by themselves?

No.

&

Moving dark stones aside hardly takes advanced technology. The real question is who were the pictograms intended for?

King of the Americas
9th February 2011, 05:39 AM
Perhaps, depending on how you define it, but truly permanent residence is inherent alienation, and there would be little question about, say, their great great great grandchildren. If after enough generations they had evolved, as you suggest your spacegods have (remember that this is a necessary dodge for distinguishing them from the gods who were so hungry for sacrifices of beating hearts and mass infusions of starved children), then they would be, without question, aliens.

If Earth was the only terra 'they' have known, how could they be re-classified as alien. E.T.'s sure, but not alien. Imagine an American who takes up permanent resident on a boat in international waters. Their kids wouldn't become citizens of another nation, especially if they never made landfall somewhere else. And if they stayed within international water, or orbit in this case, I wouldn't revoke their Earthly residence card.

King of the Americas
9th February 2011, 05:41 AM
Okay, I see we've given up on the pretense of rational discussion, and
The King now proclaiming monosyllabic royal decrees.

I'll leave you to your folly, your highness.

Me... out.

You're pissed that I answered your yes or no query with a yes or no...?

See Ya!

King of the Americas
9th February 2011, 05:42 AM
Actually, it is exactly the same phenomena. When confronted with something they couldn't explain, people assumed gods. The difference is, most people have better information now. Primitive cultures had an excuse that you do not have.

Right. Which is why I've said they AREN'T "God", just someone with better/more advanced technology than we now posses.

EHocking
9th February 2011, 05:56 AM
Right. Which is why I've said they AREN'T "God", just someone with better/more advanced technology than we now posses.Yet you have no evidence for either of these assertions.

King of the Americas
9th February 2011, 06:03 AM
Yet you have no evidence for either of these assertions.

Our craft can't make 90 degree angle turns, nor can we meld our craft together like so much clay.

These feats would require more advanced technology than we now possess.

'I' have seen this evidence directly, to arrive at the conclusion that, "They exist."

GeeMack
9th February 2011, 06:06 AM
Right. Which is why I've said they AREN'T "God", just someone with better/more advanced technology than we now posses.


But just exactly like gods (and leprechauns and ghosts and bigfoot and...), "they" are able to exist without so much as a scant trace of evidence that they do. Amazingly the "they" in this instance cruise around the sky in vehicles invisible to all modern air traffic detection and weather observation equipment, and they have the ability to allow a select few people to see them while making themselves completely undetectable by millions of other people within the same sight lines. I find the incredulity simply unbelievable! (<--- Intentional irony. :D)

EHocking
9th February 2011, 06:10 AM
Our craft can't make 90 degree angle turns, nor can we meld our craft together like so much clay.

These feats would require more advanced technology than we now possess.

'I' have seen this evidence directly, to arrive at the conclusion that, "They exist."This is personal belief not evidence for anything.

King of the Americas
9th February 2011, 06:20 AM
This is personal belief not evidence for anything.

Not to 'you'...

If a scientist sees a microbe under his microscope. What he sees, is evidence to him. HE is well within his bounds to draw a conclusion. Now if another scientist wants to 'confirm' the finding, he'll need to see the evidence for himself.

The finding isn't less true until it has been proven inaccurate.

A man on the frontier of discovery knows things you don't. Dismiss his reports at the peril of timely truth.

RoboTimbo
9th February 2011, 06:36 AM
No.
Then why do you look down on them as if they had inferior intelligence?

Moving dark stones aside hardly takes advanced technology. The real question is who were the pictograms intended for?
Do you look down on them as inferiors because they wanted a "moment skyward" with their pictoglyphs?\

EHocking
9th February 2011, 06:38 AM
Not to 'you'...

If a scientist sees a microbe under his microscope. What he sees, is evidence to him. HE is well within his bounds to draw a conclusion. Now if another scientist wants to 'confirm' the finding, he'll need to see the evidence for himself.

The finding isn't less true until it has been proven inaccurate.You so don't get Burden of Proof...A man on the frontier of discovery knows things you don't. Dismiss his reports at the peril of timely truth.You have a sighting of an UFO.

That's it.

I've had the fortune to experience two totally different aerial phenomena (UFOs).

I didn't invent a fantasical explanation of aliens in the heavens to rationalise it though.

RoboTimbo
9th February 2011, 06:40 AM
Not to 'you'...

If a scientist sees a microbe under his microscope. What he sees, is evidence to him. HE is well within his bounds to draw a conclusion. Now if another scientist wants to 'confirm' the finding, he'll need to see the evidence for himself.
Yes, good point you make about theories applying to things which are falsifiable, not WAGs. How are your claims falsifiable?

The finding isn't less true until it has been proven inaccurate.
Switching the burden of proof.

A man on the frontier of discovery knows things you don't. Dismiss his reports at the peril of timely truth.
Sorry, you can't have an opinion about it. You're dead, the ogre killed you after you misperceived a "murderer with an axe".

bruto
9th February 2011, 07:49 AM
If Earth was the only terra 'they' have known, how could they be re-classified as alien. E.T.'s sure, but not alien. Imagine an American who takes up permanent resident on a boat in international waters. Their kids wouldn't become citizens of another nation, especially if they never made landfall somewhere else. And if they stayed within international water, or orbit in this case, I wouldn't revoke their Earthly residence card.Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but the oceans are a part of this planet. Leaving the land is not leaving the earth. A long enough residence off the land, involving the voluntary forsaking of citizenship in any state, and especially if it resulted (and remember you have made that assertion) in further evolution after the departure, would likely make the descendants of the boat dwellers alien to any country on land. If they decided to come to shore, they would land as immigrants if they still counted as human at all.

aggle-rithm
9th February 2011, 07:51 AM
A man on the frontier of discovery knows things you don't. Dismiss his reports at the peril of timely truth.

If this man wants timely truth to be known, then he needs to get busy and prove his case. Not simply make "reports".

bruto
9th February 2011, 08:01 AM
Not to 'you'...

If a scientist sees a microbe under his microscope. What he sees, is evidence to him. HE is well within his bounds to draw a conclusion. Now if another scientist wants to 'confirm' the finding, he'll need to see the evidence for himself.

The finding isn't less true until it has been proven inaccurate.

A man on the frontier of discovery knows things you don't. Dismiss his reports at the peril of timely truth.
So are you saying that N-rays and phlogiston and the canals of Mars were true while they waited to be discredited?

aggle-rithm
9th February 2011, 08:11 AM
Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but the oceans are a part of this planet. Leaving the land is not leaving the earth. A long enough residence off the land, involving the voluntary forsaking of citizenship in any state, and especially if it resulted (and remember you have made that assertion) in further evolution after the departure, would likely make the descendants of the boat dwellers alien to any country on land. If they decided to come to shore, they would land as immigrants if they still counted as human at all.

KoA is currently implementing Standard Woo Operating Procedure.

1. When your claims are shown to be nonsense, fall back to a more vague position (for instance, go from "aliens" to "heavenly agents").

2. If necessary, keep falling back until your argument is diluted to the point of meaninglessness. It doesn't matter.

3. You are now free to use the "aliens vs. heavenly agents" as a substitute argument to keep the discussion going forever without ever bringing up the embarrassing subject of your ridiculous claims.

carlitos
9th February 2011, 08:13 AM
Actually, it is exactly the same phenomena. When confronted with something they couldn't explain, people assumed gods. The difference is, most people have better information now. Primitive cultures had an excuse that you do not have.Right. Which is why I've said they AREN'T "God", just someone with better/more advanced technology than we now posses.

Un - freaking - believable.

...
I included the parenthetical and you ignored it. I honestly have no idea what you are claiming, and I'd rather use a common word than ridicule you with 'whatevertheyarebutnotaliens' or 'UFOliens' or something. If you prefer a word, bring it. Gods?

...


...

I think lower case "god(s)" is the most accurate term one could use, historically speaking. Leave the "omni" out of it, but acknowledge they know more than us.
...

You just corrected me for using the word that you suggested. Please get your story straight.

ETA - aggle-rithm made the same point while I was typing.

Cuddles
9th February 2011, 08:40 AM
Un - freaking - believable.

You just corrected me for using the word that you suggested. Please get your story straight.

It says an awful lot, doesn't it? He's absolutely adamant that his memory of a single UFO sighting from many years ago is good enough to be absolutely certain that aliens/gods/thingies are flying around the place. But at the same time he has no idea what he said himself just a couple of days ago, even when it's regarding the fundamental aspects of his claims and the words are easily available on the forum for anyone to see.

You see King, here's that skepticism thing again. When a person has been conclusively proven to be unable to keep a story straight over the course of a few days, it would be madness to accept their account of an unsupported long past event as accurate. It's not "No information from anyone's senses is ever accurate.", as you keep setting up as a straw man. It's "You, personally, have proven to be totally unreliable and therefore your account can be safely ignored until some actual evidence supporting it is provided.".

King of the Americas
9th February 2011, 12:21 PM
If you don't understand the difference between the definition of "God" and "god(s)" then I can't help you...

carlitos
9th February 2011, 12:50 PM
King - start a new thread and propose a testable, falsifiable hypothesis for what you saw. Until then, further discussion is pointless.

aggle-rithm
9th February 2011, 12:55 PM
If you don't understand the difference between the definition of "God" and "god(s)" then I can't help you...

This has got to be the Grand Bull Moose of all semantic arguments...

aggle-rithm
9th February 2011, 01:05 PM
KoA, in case there's any confusion, I thought I would make it clear why falsifiability is so important.

If a world in which phenomenon "A" exists looks exactly the same as a world in which phenomenon "A" does not exist, then for all intents and purposes, "A" does not exist.

If you show that "A" can be falsified, then you are essentially showing how a world with phenomenon "A" would look differently from a world without phenomenon "A".

If phenomenon "A" is unfalsifiable and you choose to BELIEVE it exists, then good for you. You can say "I believe in phenomenon 'A'", and we can't really disagree. You believe what you believe.

However, if you say "I KNOW phenomenon 'A' exists", then you are a fool or a liar. You can't possibly know about something whose existence leaves exactly the same footprint on the Universe as...well, nothing.

bruto
9th February 2011, 03:24 PM
King - start a new thread and propose a testable, falsifiable hypothesis for what you saw. Until then, further discussion is pointless.A point? That's as long gone as the edge of KotA's chisels.

King of the Americas
9th February 2011, 03:50 PM
King - start a new thread and propose a testable, falsifiable hypothesis for what you saw. Until then, further discussion is pointless.

Honestly, I wouldn't know where or how to begin.

What kind of process or procedure would you recommend?

King of the Americas
9th February 2011, 04:01 PM
This has got to be the Grand Bull Moose of all semantic arguments...

No.

One is the Omni-potent, Omni-present, First Mover. Literally the Big Bang of which we are all a part of. The single governing law who's rule can only be understood not even God could amended.

The other(s) are those who appear to possess super-human ability. Micheal Jordan is a basketball god. So those jetting about our skies, with seeming ease, and superior maneuvers, are known or called the "god(s) of the skies".

Is this really too difficult to understand?

Sean84
9th February 2011, 04:32 PM
No.

One is the Omni-potent, Omni-present, First Mover. Literally the Big Bang of which we are all a part of. The single governing law who's rule can only be understood not even God could amended.

The other(s) are those who appear to possess super-human ability. Micheal Jordan is a basketball god. So those jetting about our skies, with seeming ease, and superior maneuvers, are known or called the "god(s) of the skies".

Is this really too difficult to understand?

Michael Jordan is God Emperor of Dune. Got it.

Now what's all this ******** about aliens?

bruto
9th February 2011, 06:32 PM
Michael Jordan is God Emperor of Dune. Got it.

Now what's all this ******** about aliens?If your little green men don't have little green cards they can't land here.

carlitos
9th February 2011, 07:08 PM
Honestly, I wouldn't know where or how to begin.

What kind of process or procedure would you recommend?

I'd recommend trolling somewhere else. Or researching the scientific method and learning something, rather than pretending to be interested in stuff.

GeeMack
9th February 2011, 08:07 PM
No.

One is the Omni-potent, Omni-present, First Mover. Literally the Big Bang of which we are all a part of. The single governing law who's rule can only be understood not even God could amended.

The other(s) are those who appear to possess super-human ability. Micheal Jordan is a basketball god. So those jetting about our skies, with seeming ease, and superior maneuvers, are known or called the "god(s) of the skies".


So would you say The Blue Angels (http://www.blueangels.navy.mil/) are the gods, or is it The Thunderbirds (http://thunderbirds.airforce.com/)?

Cuddles
10th February 2011, 07:44 AM
If you don't understand the difference between the definition of "God" and "god(s)" then I can't help you...

Of course, this would make a lot more sense as an argument if the post you complained about hadn't actually used the term "gods":
When confronted with something they couldn't explain, people assumed gods.

Once again, you demonstrate a complete failure to actually understand anything you read, or to remember what you said just a short time previously. Do you really think this is helping you convince anyone that your single unsupported memory from many years ago is accurate?

King of the Americas
10th February 2011, 07:47 AM
What I find exceedingly interesting AND SAD is the almost total lack of serious responses to ANY of my arguments.

Worse was the daily mis-statements or outright lies about my actual stance.

This exchange has been anything but an honest straight forward discussion put forward by my OP.

When ridicule and mockery take the place of critical thinking based skepticism, debate itself suffers.

When you ignore what your opponent actually says, and just make up your own strawman to attack, there can be no discussion at all...

I have repeatedly said, "I do not believe in aliens.", yet you'll find the term constantly attributed to my beliefs from MOST of self-proclaimed skeptics here, is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

Masquerading blatant ignorance, ridicule, and mockery as skepticism hurts or otherwise hinders everyone's search for truth.

And I think THAT is really the point or goal of skeptics here, to derail any and all efforts to find out the truth behind U.F.O.'s and their connection between history's- "god(s) of the heavens".

This place, JREF, is NOT the bastion of intellectualism it once was...

RoboTimbo
10th February 2011, 07:53 AM
What I find exceedingly interesting AND SAD is the almost total lack of serious responses to ANY of my arguments.

Worse was the daily mis-statements or outright lies about my actual stance.

This exchange has been anything but an honest straight forward discussion put forward by my OP.

When ridicule and mockery take the place of critical thinking based skepticism, debate itself suffers.

When you ignore what your opponent actually says, and just make up your own strawman to attack, there can be no discussion at all...

Having repeatedly said, "I do not believe in aliens.", yet you find the term constantly attributed to my beliefs from MOST of self-proclaimed skeptics is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

Masquerading blatant ignorance, ridicule, and mockery as skepticism hurts or otherwise hinders everyone's search for truth.

And I think THAT is really the point or goal of skeptics here, to derail any and all efforts to find out the truth behind U.F.O.'s and their connection between history's- "god(s) of the heavens".

This place, JREF, is NOT the bastion of intellectualism it once was...

Remind me what the premise of your OP was again?

King of the Americas
10th February 2011, 08:20 AM
Removed quote of moderated content

^THIS^ is more intellectual dishonesty.

I prefer Stewart to Colbert.

bruto
10th February 2011, 08:20 AM
What I find exceedingly interesting AND SAD is the almost total lack of serious responses to ANY of my arguments.

Worse was the daily mis-statements or outright lies about my actual stance.

This exchange has been anything but an honest straight forward discussion put forward by my OP.

When ridicule and mockery take the place of critical thinking based skepticism, debate itself suffers.

When you ignore what your opponent actually says, and just make up your own strawman to attack, there can be no discussion at all...

Having repeatedly said, "I do not believe in aliens.", yet you find the term constantly attributed to my beliefs from MOST of self-proclaimed skeptics is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

Masquerading blatant ignorance, ridicule, and mockery as skepticism hurts or otherwise hinders everyone's search for truth.

And I think THAT is really the point or goal of skeptics here, to derail any and all efforts to find out the truth behind U.F.O.'s and their connection between history's- "god(s) of the heavens".

This place, JREF, is NOT the bastion of intellectualism it once was...

You are the one who has strayed very far from the original post and its premise, which was what, if all the anecdotes regarding UFO's were stipulated as true, one might do to attract them. Theories about gods, the supposedly lost arts of the ancient stonecutters, and such, are all superfluous to that original question, as are later attempts to cherry pick the anecdotes and reject those that don't fit your own faith. It is you who have met all attempts to address that question rationally with digressions, qualifications, redefinitions and accusations of wilful ignorance, and you have changed the initial premise by conflating UFO anecdotes with ancient myths and theologies.

I started off on this thread in good faith, thinking it an interesting thought exercise, as I think at least a few others did. But we long ago ran out of serious responses. In case you have forgotten, perhaps you should reread the earlier pages. Some of those responses may have been flippant, as befits a subject as inherently silly as this, but many were directly relevant and to the point raised.

To that point, I will repeat my original assertion. If all the anecdotes were true, this would indicate that the aliens in question have no interest in formal visiting, and the wise choice would be to assume that the aliens in question would continue to be as useless and disappointing as they have always been, and their interests almost certainly inimical to ours. We would be in this sense much like the uncontacted tribes of the Amazon, for whom the potential benefits of contact are almost entirely in the mind of the invader, and framed in the cultural biases and assumptions of the invader, while the risks to the invaded, borne out by centuries of history, are dire and often fatal.

King of the Americas
10th February 2011, 08:22 AM
Remind me what the premise of your OP was again?

Thank you very much.

bruto
10th February 2011, 08:29 AM
Removed quote of moderated contentWhy would government coverups thwart an attempt by aliens to make contact if they want it? If they have not figured out a safe place to land or a way to make their existence unequivocally known, then two choices present themselves: one is that they don't exist, the second is that they're so alien to our way of thinking that they're clearly unable to interact with us in a rational way. Either way, the only thing likely to be crazier than the aliens is the people who want to invite them to dinner.

RoboTimbo
10th February 2011, 08:30 AM
Thank you very much.

The dishonesty was on your part.

Wishing you a speedy recovery from the gunshot wound to your foot.

King of the Americas
10th February 2011, 08:31 AM
You are the one who has strayed very far from the original post and its premise, which was what, if all the anecdotes regarding UFO's were stipulated as true, one might do to attract them. Theories about gods, the supposedly lost arts of the ancient stonecutters, and such, are all superfluous to that original question, as are later attempts to cherry pick the anecdotes and reject those that don't fit your own faith. It is you who have met all attempts to address that question rationally with digressions, qualifications, redefinitions and accusations of wilful ignorance, and you have changed the initial premise by conflating UFO anecdotes with ancient myths and theologies.

I started off on this thread in good faith, thinking it an interesting thought exercise, as I think at least a few others did. But we long ago ran out of serious responses. In case you have forgotten, perhaps you should reread the earlier pages. Some of those responses may have been flippant, as befits a subject as inherently silly as this, but many were directly relevant and to the point raised.

To that point, I will repeat my original assertion. If all the anecdotes were true, this would indicate that the aliens in question have no interest in formal visiting, and the wise choice would be to assume that the aliens in question would continue to be as useless and disappointing as they have always been, and their interests almost certainly inimical to ours. We would be in this sense much like the uncontacted tribes of the Amazon, for whom the potential benefits of contact are almost entirely in the mind of the invader, and framed in the cultural biases and assumptions of the invader, while the risks to the invaded, borne out by centuries of history, are dire and often fatal.

Those side trails were in direct correlation to the 2nd word in the OP title: Their "Return". These great works, the lack of tools HERE to do the work, presented as evidence that 'they' and their technology LEFT. I presented videos as to what modern tools and techniques are required to remove hard stone, to no avail.

That you use the word "silly" to describe these conclusions is all on you buddy. I think that's a cheap, ineffective, pathetic attempt to make yourself feel better about your own ignorance.

And once again, I do not believe in "aliens", but I do thank you very much for helping me prove my point.

bruto
10th February 2011, 10:05 AM
Those side trails were in direct correlation to the 2nd word in the OP title: Their "Return". These great works, the lack of tools HERE to do the work, presented as evidence that 'they' and their technology LEFT. I presented videos as to what modern tools and techniques are required to remove hard stone, to no avail.

That you use the word "silly" to describe these conclusions is all on you buddy. I think that's a cheap, ineffective, pathetic attempt to make yourself feel better about your own ignorance.

And once again, I do not believe in "aliens", but I do thank you very much for helping me prove my point.but you haven't proven any point. The questions of the original post have been addressed, to the point. You asked a question, but it's clear from your own response here and your characterization of your position as "conclusions," that it was not a question at all and that you were never interested in discussing it in the terms you specified.

aggle-rithm
10th February 2011, 10:13 AM
No.

One is the Omni-potent, Omni-present, First Mover. Literally the Big Bang of which we are all a part of. The single governing law who's rule can only be understood not even God could amended.

The other(s) are those who appear to possess super-human ability. Micheal Jordan is a basketball god. So those jetting about our skies, with seeming ease, and superior maneuvers, are known or called the "god(s) of the skies".

Is this really too difficult to understand?

I have absolutely no difficulty understanding why you choose to argue about different meanings rather than discuss the fact that your claims are completely without merit.
As I said before, it's woo SOP.

carlitos
10th February 2011, 10:23 AM
What I find exceedingly interesting AND SAD is the almost total lack of serious responses to ANY of my arguments.

Worse was the daily mis-statements or outright lies about my actual stance.

This exchange has been anything but an honest straight forward discussion put forward by my OP.

When ridicule and mockery take the place of critical thinking based skepticism, debate itself suffers.

When you ignore what your opponent actually says, and just make up your own strawman to attack, there can be no discussion at all... Please take your own advice. For Example:

I have repeatedly said, "I do not believe in aliens.", yet you'll find the term constantly attributed to my beliefs from MOST of self-proclaimed skeptics here, is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.
I asked you what word to use. You answered "god(s)."

...
I included the parenthetical and you ignored it. I honestly have no idea what you are claiming, and I'd rather use a common word than ridicule you with 'whatevertheyarebutnotaliens' or 'UFOliens' or something. If you prefer a word, bring it. Gods?

...


...

I think lower case "god(s)" is the most accurate term one could use, historically speaking. Leave the "omni" out of it, but acknowledge they know more than us.
...


My subsequent responses to you have used the word gods, plural and lowercase. Every single time.

Then, I attempt to reason with you about your hypothesis that today's UFO gods are the same phenomena as ancient drawings or carvings. Your reply? A dishonest strawman argument that you didn't say "God."


Actually, it is exactly the same phenomena. When confronted with something they couldn't explain, people assumed gods. The difference is, most people have better information now. Primitive cultures had an excuse that you do not have.Right. Which is why I've said they AREN'T "God", just someone with better/more advanced technology than we now posses.

Well, neither did I buddy. Your tactics are disingenuous and obvious. You're making **** up as you go.

Again. Un - freaking - believable.



Masquerading blatant ignorance, ridicule, and mockery as skepticism hurts or otherwise hinders everyone's search for truth.

And I think THAT is really the point or goal of skeptics here, to derail any and all efforts to find out the truth behind U.F.O.'s and their connection between history's- "god(s) of the heavens".

This place, JREF, is NOT the bastion of intellectualism it once was...
Blah blah blah. Cry me a river.

Post a new, falfifiable and testable hypothesis. Stop bellyaching on the internet and go buy a book on logic. Until then, you're just trolling.

King of the Americas
10th February 2011, 10:39 AM
... Your reply? A dishonest strawman argument that you didn't say "God."


...

Just because you WROTE "gods", doesn't mean the inflection wasn't of God, in your example.

What the ancients saw and wrote of THEY thought were "of God". This may be true in a holistic sense, in that we are all part of this ever expanding Big Bang of a singularity, but just because you are way better than me at something, doesn't mean I should worship you.

What the ancients saw was just better technologies at work, not "God" at all. They called them that, angels, demons, or any number of other things including "god". But NONE of these terms phrases or ideas is any more accurate than the next, because THEY AREN'T HERE.

'They' are 'up there'... We are down here... So, none of us really knows what or who they are.

I Ratant
10th February 2011, 10:46 AM
So would you say The Blue Angels (http://www.blueangels.navy.mil/) are the gods, or is it The Thunderbirds (http://thunderbirds.airforce.com/)?
.
Having worked with the top test pilots in the US Navy and the US Air Force, I'd vote for the Blues as best.
Both services have incredibly gifted fliers.. the Navy just pushes them further.

carlitos
10th February 2011, 11:52 AM
Just because you WROTE "gods", doesn't mean the inflection wasn't of God, in your example.
Hmm... Now you're guessing my inflection? I use italics to add that, as I did in editing your post above.

When you ignore what your opponent actually says, and just make up your own strawman to attack, there can be no discussion at all...




What the ancients saw and wrote of THEY thought were "of God". This may be true in a holistic sense, in that we are all part of this ever expanding Big Bang of a singularity, but just because you are way better than me at something, doesn't mean I should worship you.
No, but when you 'look up,' do you expect me to appear? :rolleyes:

What the ancients saw was just better technologies at work, not "God" at all. They called them that, angels, demons, or any number of other things including "god". But NONE of these terms phrases or ideas is any more accurate than the next, because THEY AREN'T HERE.

'They' are 'up there'... We are down here... So, none of any really knows what or who they are.
Or that they exist at all. Despite you seeing some lights in the sky one time.

GeeMack
10th February 2011, 12:00 PM
Remind me what the premise of your OP was again?


I think I can answer that. It was a dishonest troll about some game of just-pretend designed as a lead-in to pursuing an agenda. The agenda was to rally support for a petition drive to get the Olympics committee to help recruit the population of the world to call in the aliens.

Oddly enough the OP, having established right from the start that he/she wasn't interested in an honest discussion of anything, is now accusing other participants of being dishonest. Where's that pot/kettle icon?

GeeMack
10th February 2011, 12:02 PM
.
Having worked with the top test pilots in the US Navy and the US Air Force, I'd vote for the Blues as best.
Both services have incredibly gifted fliers.. the Navy just pushes them further.


They're gods I tell you. Gods! :p

King of the Americas
10th February 2011, 02:36 PM
Hmm... Now you're guessing my inflection? I use italics to add that, as I did in editing your post above.

No, but when you 'look up,' do you expect me to appear? :rolleyes:


Or that they exist at all. Despite you seeing some lights in the sky one time.

I didn't see "lights". I saw "star-like objects"...

Stop mis-representing my statements.

BTMO
10th February 2011, 02:41 PM
I didn't see "lights". I saw "star-like objects"...

Stop mis-representing my statements.


Quick challenge - describe a star.

And just for fun, do so without using the word "light" or any of its synonyms...

King of the Americas
10th February 2011, 02:54 PM
Quick challenge - describe a star.

And just for fun, do so without using the word "light" or any of its synonyms...

"Lights" are stable fixtures emitting a constant beam of light.

What I saw "oscillated" or twinkled like a star.

They were not 'just lights'...

Correa Neto
10th February 2011, 02:57 PM
What I find exceedingly interesting AND SAD is the almost total lack of serious responses to ANY of my arguments.

...snip...

Funny... I posted several serious responses to your arguments. Some of them contained a number of evidence pieces which we could expect to be present if some of your especulations, ideas, fantasies, etc. were correct. Others showed why some of your especulations, ideas, fantasies, etc. are wrong.

No serious reply. Most were ignored, some received as reply a lame attempt to evade, to circle the problem. A certain one received a statement which I think, using your own words, is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty -
"I AM THE TRUTH".

carlitos
10th February 2011, 03:05 PM
Hmm... Now you're guessing my inflection? I use italics to add that, as I did in editing your post above.

No, but when you 'look up,' do you expect me to appear? :rolleyes:


Or that they exist at all. Despite you seeing some lights in the sky one time.

I didn't see "lights". I saw "star-like objects"...

Stop mis-representing my statements.

You did see lights, but you didn't see "just lights," right? :rolleyes:

"Lights" are stable fixtures emitting a constant beam of light.

What I saw "oscillated" or twinkled like a star.

They were not 'just lights'...

Please take your own advice. I didn't say "just lights" either. Oscillating red / blue lights are a subset of "lights." I continue to use the terms you have introduced here and you continue to pretend I'm not using your terms. That's dishonest and I wish you would stop it.


When you ignore what your opponent actually says, and just make up your own strawman to attack, there can be no discussion at all...


I posted a video of red and blue oscillating cop lights, and you watched it and commented on it. Those too were "some lights," that were recently incorporated into your confabulated UFO anecdote.


ETA - my bolding. Since when is light not an object? Those are your words.
2003:
Originally Posted by king of the americas
i said it was true because i saw star-like objects(6), emitting a visible light, move with a constant velocity and make right-angle turns, and move in cordination with one another, and at one point disobey the laws of physics. And i have seen more than one other example of this event in a video recording, that couldn't be identified with any terresterial craft. And that this same 'theme' is present in every form of media throughout the ages...is what leads me to this 'finding'.
Originally Posted by king of the americas30th october 2003, 09:09 am
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken
You said star like objects.. now it's star like lights. Which is it?

since when is a light not an object? This was at night, there were a half a dozen of them, and they performed tasks that no terresterial pilot could. Moreover, their ability to disobey the laws of physics, as i understand them led me to this unearthly conclusion.

BTMO
10th February 2011, 03:19 PM
"Lights" are stable fixtures emitting a constant beam of light.

What I saw "oscillated" or twinkled like a star.

They were not 'just lights'...

Wrong on several points. And you failed the challenge.

carlitos
10th February 2011, 03:36 PM
Star-like object light, Star-like object bright
The first star-like object I see tonight;
I wish I may, I wish I might,
Have the wish I wish tonight.

:alien009:

tsig
10th February 2011, 06:18 PM
What I find exceedingly interesting AND SAD is the almost total lack of serious responses to ANY of my arguments.

Worse was the daily mis-statements or outright lies about my actual stance.

This exchange has been anything but an honest straight forward discussion put forward by my OP.

When ridicule and mockery take the place of critical thinking based skepticism, debate itself suffers.

When you ignore what your opponent actually says, and just make up your own strawman to attack, there can be no discussion at all...

I have repeatedly said, "I do not believe in aliens.", yet you'll find the term constantly attributed to my beliefs from MOST of self-proclaimed skeptics here, is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

Masquerading blatant ignorance, ridicule, and mockery as skepticism hurts or otherwise hinders everyone's search for truth.

And I think THAT is really the point or goal of skeptics here, to derail any and all efforts to find out the truth behind U.F.O.'s and their connection between history's- "god(s) of the heavens".

This place, JREF, is NOT the bastion of intellectualism it once was...

Yeah it's not the bastion of intellectualism it never was.

Yeah_Right
10th February 2011, 06:55 PM
KotA, the simple fact is that no one knows what those oscillating lights were, so rather than assume they were heavenly agents, why don't you say, you don't know what they were? That would, at least, be a little more intellectually honest.

King of the Americas
10th February 2011, 08:43 PM
You did see lights, but you didn't see "just lights," right? :rolleyes:

...

ETA - my bolding. Since when is light not an object? Those are your words.

Light, in and of itself, is not an object. If we are being literal, and defining the moo poo out of everything. Objects can emit light...fire, or the emission of energy, emits light...

I saw no bulb, thruster vents, or flashlight handle behind or within the "oscillating red, white, and blue star-like objects." There was no thruster burst, or change in the magnitude of the objects when they moved.

The REALLY unusual thing that occurred when 2 objects joined together, and made an object that was 4-fold larger...

So it is incorrect, inaccurate, and NOT a full description of my experience to say, "You saw some lights, and now you believe in aliens."

Please stop mis-representing my experience and my conclusion.

carlitos
10th February 2011, 08:55 PM
Light, in and of itself, is not an object.

Since when is a light not an object?

gods / God, lights / objects. Your dishonesty is here for all to see. Feel free to posit a real, falsifiable, testable hypothesis and prove me wrong.

BTW, it's cute that you put your latest version of the fantasy story in quotes, like you're quoting someone. Blue, red and white oscillating lights are a confabulation of yours.

ETA - the bits about the bulb and thruster vents are cute. Nice fantasy, bro.

King of the Americas
10th February 2011, 09:01 PM
Funny... I posted several serious responses to your arguments. Some of them contained a number of evidence pieces which we could expect to be present if some of your especulations, ideas, fantasies, etc. were correct. Others showed why some of your especulations, ideas, fantasies, etc. are wrong.

No serious reply. Most were ignored, some received as reply a lame attempt to evade, to circle the problem. A certain one received a statement which I think, using your own words, is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty -
"I AM THE TRUTH".

Are you the truth, or are you saying that I said that? Because I don't recall saying that...

So, what IS your 'serious' retort? How does an indigenous tribe get the sky gods to descend?

Wouldn't it make sense to bring out the whole tribe, when the L.W.B. is expected to show up?

How would a single scout from the tribe convince the others in the tribe, that there even was a L.W.B.??

What do YOU think is behind actual U.F.O. sightings? Say if 90% ARE mis-identifications of light bouncing off of swamp gas, blimps, balloons, or military craft of some kind. The remaining 10%, what is it, or what are they? Is there ANY chance whatsoever, that it could be E.T.'s...?

Why is "E.T.'s" the least likely conclusion...?

King of the Americas
10th February 2011, 09:04 PM
gods / God, lights / objects. Your dishonesty is here for all to see. Feel free to posit a real, falsifiable, testable hypothesis and prove me wrong.

BTW, it's cute that you put your latest version of the fantasy story in quotes, like you're quoting someone. Blue, red and white oscillating lights are a confabulation of yours.

ETA - the bits about the bulb and thruster vents are cute. Nice fantasy, bro.

I meant in the second one, that light is evidence of an object emitting it...

Enough with the semantics already.

carlitos
10th February 2011, 09:09 PM
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”




It's completely accurate to say that you remember a story where you think you saw some lights, and now you believe in gods of the heavens. Tough **** if you don't like it.

Again, feel free to state a testable, falsifiable hypothesis and then we can discuss this honestly, instead of you holding court with your little fairy tale. Coward.

King of the Americas
10th February 2011, 09:19 PM
...

It's completely accurate to say that you remember a story where you think you saw some lights, and now you believe in gods of the heavens. Tough **** if you don't like it.

Again, feel free to state a testable, falsifiable hypothesis and then we can discuss this honestly, instead of you holding court with your little fairy tale. Coward.

:rolleyes: It was not "lights" alone that led me to believe in gods of the heavens... History itself led me to that belief, seeing "objects" perform inhuman flight patterns & meld together others confirmed that there is indeed something up there, better than us.

AGAIN, I wouldn't know the first place to start in regards to creating a falsifiable hypothesis.

How would I go about doing so?

carlitos
10th February 2011, 09:53 PM
Why not look at the wikipedia entry for a start:

An hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. The term derives from the Greek, ὑποτιθέναι – hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis.

So, what's your hypothesis for your sighting? State a hypothesis, and members here can work on improving it, making it testable and falsifiable.