Their Return

[Jeff Corey]

No, that's a "phallacy" - a phony fallacy.

[bruto]

Mmm... I see you're employing the old 'wagging a finger fallacy'She has to, because "waving the fallacy finger" is forbidden by forum rules.

[Elizabeth I]

Mmm... I see you're employing the old 'wagging a finger fallacy'
Yes, it's been handed down in my family for generations, and mostly directed at me - my great-grandmother, my grandmother, and my great-aunts all did a lot of finger-wagging at me. Head shaking, too.

[Toke]

Yes, it's been handed down in my family for generations, and mostly directed at me - my great-grandmother, my grandmother, and my great-aunts all did a lot of finger-wagging at me. Head shaking, too.

So wrangling is not a fallacy?

[Elizabeth I]

So wrangling is not a fallacy?
I don't know, you'd have to ask the cattle or broncos or whatever. :D

[aggle-rithm]

Radar images aren't anecdotes.

Stop willfully ignoring evidence. Don't you know that's a fallacy?

All right, let's look closely at what Wikipedia says happened.

__________________________

Air traffic controller saw seven objects on radar. "movements radical"
Another radar center saw the objects, and a bright orange light out the window.Saw them move over the White House and US Capitol.
Andrews AFB saw nothing on radar, but an airman saw a strange object; an orange ball of fire, trailing a tail. He saw two objects, but they disappeared before anyone else could see it.
On the 20th, a person in the control tower saw an orange disk at 3000 feet.
While waiting to take off, SC Pierman saw a meteor, then was told that control tower's radar had picked up unknown objects closing in on his position. After which Pierman saw six objects (white, talless, fast moving lights).
Staff Sgt. Davenport saw an orange-red light that made abrupt change in direction and altitude.
Others at Andrews AFB thought they saw things on radar.
Objects disappeared from radar when jets were in the area, then reappeared when they left.
Civilian radio engineer saw five huge disks circling in loose formation, tilted upward and made a steep ascent.
Operation Blue Book supervisor did not find out about sightings until they were in the newspaper on the 22nd.
July 26th, pilot and stewardess saw strange objects above their plane.
National Airport and Andrews AFB both tracked objects. A master sergeant saw them and said they were faster than shooting stars; no trails.
At National Airport, radar showed unknown objects in every sector. Sometimes they moved slowly, something at 7000 mph.
Jet fighter leader saw nothing, but wingman chased four white "glows". He chased them, they surrounded him. He asked the control tower what he should do, but got stunned silence. They sped away and disappeared.
Two more jets were scrambled, one pilot saw nothing, another saw a white light that vanished when he closed in.
A civilian pilot saw "odd lights" for 12 minutes.

______________________________________

A few things pop right out. First of all, your claim that Project Blue book was started as a response to the incidences is incorrect, as several Project Blue Book representatives were mentioned as taking part in the incident. Second, there are no eyewitnesses mentioned of slow-moving lights passing just over the Capitol building, as is seen in the video. Third, here is how the UFO is described in different sightings:

1. A bright orange light
2. Two orange balls of fire, trailing a tail, which disappeared before anyone else could see them
3. An orange disk at 3000 feet (how did he know how high?)
4. White, tailless, fast-moving lights
5. An orange-red light that made fast changes in direction and altitude.
6. Five huge disks in loose formation
7. Things that presumably looked like shooting stars, but were tailless and moved too fast
8. While "glows"
9. Odd lights

If everyone saw the same thing, then why are these descriptions so different? And why do NONE of them look like the objects in the video?

And about the radar readings: Most of the really unusual stuff was reported by one man, an air traffic controller at the civilian airport. Interestingly, when jets were brought in so that they were in a position to see what was there, they conveniently disappeared from radar.

I don't find this evidence compelling at all.

ETA: One of the things I find REALLY interesting...when an Air Force pilot found himself surrounded by UFO's, he asked the CIVILIAN CONTROL TOWER what he should do...why not ask his flight leader, who incidentally saw nothing?

[carlitos]

Hey, to be fair, 1 through 9 are just as consistent as King of the Americas' UFO story.

[Andrew Wiggin]

How do you think humanity might get a technologically advanced race, to descend from our immediate heavens?

Drive your old, broken down car down a country road late at night, with your best girl in the passenger's seat and an open '40' in your hand?

Go stand in a forest and wait for D.B. Cooper to parachute in?

Build a replica of devil's tower with mashed potatos, clay and dirt and play an organ repetitively?

Mow suggestive images into your lawn? 'hey guys, I'm ready for my probing' (this is how crop circles work. They're the UFO enthusiast's version of Goatse. We think they're geometric messages; to aliens they're images of sphincters)

Find an antique speak n' spell, cover an umbrella with aluminum foil, mount the speak n' spell on the handle, point it at the sky and type in 'land here'?

[Psiload]

Drive your old, broken down car down a country road late at night, with your best girl in the passenger's seat and an open '40' in your hand?

Go stand in a forest and wait for D.B. Cooper to parachute in?

Build a replica of devil's tower with mashed potatos, clay and dirt and play an organ repetitively?

Mow suggestive images into your lawn? 'hey guys, I'm ready for my probing' (this is how crop circles work. They're the UFO enthusiast's version of Goatse. We think they're geometric messages; to aliens they're images of sphincters)

Find an antique speak n' spell, cover an umbrella with aluminum foil, mount the speak n' spell on the handle, point it at the sky and type in 'land here'?

Allow me to continue.

Commence a building project which involves making a really big pile of really big rocks.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Allow me to continue.

Commence a building project which involves making a really big pile of really big rocks.

Good idea. Aliens are obsessive-compulsive and can never resist the urge to show up and help primitives pile rocks. It's sort of like attracting attention by playing solitaire; some jackass is sure to show up, peer over your shoulder and remind you that the 3 of diamonds goes on the 4 of spades.

[Jeff Corey]

That sounds like mild mockery to me. We must maintain a higher quality of mockery to be able to repel the returning former residents of our planet before they turn us all into mindless dolts. Well, except in the case of those of us who were mindless dolts to begin with.

[King of the Americas]

I think the building of a REALLY big pile of stones should be added to the list.

Are the Nazca Lines 'builders' ancestors' still around, or did that culture disappear too?

Look up and own the coast in these 'kinds' of areas (http://toolserver.org/~geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Nazca_Lines&params=14_43_S_75_08_W_)

[King of the Americas]

So, in summation...

We've got:

-"a moment skyward"

-reverting back to the bronze age

-flaunting our whores

-ending civilization

&

What else?

-big pile of rocks

-big ass runways

Wasn't there something else...?

[carlitos]

After much reflection, I think I will heed lionking's advice. I'll use the extra 10 minutes in my day to learn a foreign language. Adios, King of the Americas. I'm glad that you're still a member in good standing here.

[King of the Americas]

All right, let's look closely at what Wikipedia says happened.

__________________________

...

If everyone saw the same thing, then why are these descriptions so different? And why do NONE of them look like the objects in the video?

And about the radar readings: Most of the really unusual stuff was reported by one man, an air traffic controller at the civilian airport. Interestingly, when jets were brought in so that they were in a position to see what was there, they conveniently disappeared from radar.

I don't find this evidence compelling at all.

ETA: One of the things I find REALLY interesting...when an Air Force pilot found himself surrounded by UFO's, he asked the CIVILIAN CONTROL TOWER what he should do...why not ask his flight leader, who incidentally saw nothing?

There were 'different' U.F.O.'s in the air that night...

Some of which were on radar, and disappeared, once the jets showed up. The jets THAT DID CHASE, were left in the dust.

As for why a military pilot would interact with a civilian control tower, I am pretty sure it is common practice to maintain radio contact with whichever tower you are near... If you were sent to investigate beyond your base's tower TO a civilian controlled airspace, why WOULDN'T you be in radio contact with them???

[aggle-rithm]

There were 'different' U.F.O.'s in the air that night...

Some of which were on radar, and disappeared, once the jets showed up. The jets THAT DID CHASE, were left in the dust.

As for why a military pilot would interact with a civilian control tower, I am pretty sure it is common practice to maintain radio contact with whichever tower you are near... If you were sent to investigate beyond your base's tower TO a civilian controlled airspace, why WOULDN'T you be in radio contact with them???

Very nice....now let's get back to my original request.

I asked for a video that you considered to be the best evidence of your claims. This time, can you provide one that stands on its own merits, or at least is corroborated by eyewitness reports of the event that was captured on film? The '52 incidents do not qualify because none of the anecdotes from that day mention slow-moving lights passing less than 100 feet over the capitol building, as the video shows.

[Stray Cat]

There were 'different' U.F.O.'s in the air that night...
Or more accurately, various different circumstances came together and have been interpreted as a single event.

Some of which were on radar, and disappeared, once the jets showed up. The jets THAT DID CHASE, were left in the dust.
The disappearing had nothing to do with the jets arriving. The radar operators reported seeing radar returns appearing and disappearing over the course of a few months.
The jets were most likely chasing their own tails and of course when you do that, you're not going to be able to catch up.

[bruto]

I think the building of a REALLY big pile of stones should be added to the list.

Are the Nazca Lines 'builders' ancestors' still around, or did that culture disappear too?

Look up and own the coast in these 'kinds' of areas (http://toolserver.org/~geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Nazca_Lines&params=14_43_S_75_08_W_)As far as I know, the Nazca culture, like so many others, is gone. If they do have descendants (one presumes their ancestors died before they did), it appears they don't know any more about the lines than we do. It's no particular mystery how they were made, but nobody is quite sure why.

I think if you were to do a Nazca like sign for landings, the existing symbols would be a poor choice, since they give no hint of an invitation to land, and no pattern that encourages landing in any particular place. They could as easily mean "Don't let the sun set on you, space trash, or my monkey will bite you."

[King of the Americas]

Very nice....now let's get back to my original request.

I asked for a video that you considered to be the best evidence of your claims. This time, can you provide one that stands on its own merits, or at least is corroborated by eyewitness reports of the event that was captured on film? The '52 incidents do not qualify because none of the anecdotes from that day mention slow-moving lights passing less than 100 feet over the capitol building, as the video shows.

I think you are wrong.

As has been stated there WERE 'different' U.F.O.'s in the air. This slow-moving formation was one set of them.

THOUSANDS made the report of the slow-moving formation over the capitol.

[Stray Cat]

I think you are wrong.

As has been stated there WERE 'different' U.F.O.'s in the air. This slow-moving formation was one set of them.
Is this your willful ignorance showing through again?

The footage you linked has never been shown to be from the actual time of the event, let alone shown to be a real event at all. It is not backed up by any of the official witness statements and there is no other witness statement that it relates to or can be tied in to. It's provenance nor date or origination can not be determined and therefore it is absolutely useless to use it as any sort of reliable evidence. I pointed all this out on the previous page of this thread.

Have you made a conscious choice to ignore these points?

[Psiload]

I think the building of a REALLY big pile of stones should be added to the list.

Are the Nazca Lines 'builders' ancestors' still around, or did that culture disappear too?

Look up and own the coast in these 'kinds' of areas (http://toolserver.org/~geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Nazca_Lines&params=14_43_S_75_08_W_)

Is there any evidence to suggest that the Nazca Lines worked? Is there any evidence of the ETs interacting with the Nazcans?

[Stray Cat]

Is there any evidence to suggest that the Nazca Lines worked? Is there any evidence of the ETs interacting with the Nazcans?
I suspect the best evidence that 'they' interacted with the Nazzers is that the ETs would be the only species who had sufficient advanced technology to make sure they didn't leave a single shred of evidence of that interaction behind when they left to return to the heavens. :boggled:

[King of the Americas]

Very nice....now let's get back to my original request.

I asked for a video that you considered to be the best evidence of your claims. This time, can you provide one that stands on its own merits, or at least is corroborated by eyewitness reports of the event that was captured on film? The '52 incidents do not qualify because none of the anecdotes from that day mention slow-moving lights passing less than 100 feet over the capitol building, as the video shows.

This event is or should be the most well known U.F.O. event...the video for this, remains both unsourced, and sans debunking, meaning that it may or may not b what it looks like.

The only other 'video' and sighting I would present would be the one from the late 80's early 90's taken during a Mexican military parade. A silver balloon looking object flies between a formation of helicopters. One unit breaks off to pursue but the object increases it rate of speed and escapes. The video famously appears in several U.F.O. documentaries.

I'd rather stay with the D.C. sightings in '52, as I think we have the most documentation and access to information.

[King of the Americas]

Or more accurately, various different circumstances came together and have been interpreted as a single event.


The disappearing had nothing to do with the jets arriving. The radar operators reported seeing radar returns appearing and disappearing over the course of a few months.
The jets were most likely chasing their own tails and of course when you do that, you're not going to be able to catch up.

First, it was really a large event with two 'peaks' in activity...

Could you further qualify the statement "chasing their own tails", in reference to ANY of the pilots' reports?

[King of the Americas]

Is there any evidence to suggest that the Nazca Lines worked? Is there any evidence of the ETs interacting with the Nazcans?

Well, if the question is how do you get E.T. to give you a ride on a space ship, and the answer is the Nazcans drew big ass pictograms and are now GONE...

Then the lines worked, right?

[King of the Americas]

I suspect the best evidence that 'they' interacted with the Nazzers is that the ETs would be the only species who had sufficient advanced technology to make sure they didn't leave a single shred of evidence of that interaction behind when they left to return to the heavens. :boggled:

Well, maybe THAT is the point...?

To let each species rise, and ascend to some level of existence, then to join 'the gods' in he heavens...?

Leaving behind you, only tales of your existence...

*We DON'T have a single shred of evidence that this sort of thing has happened, we have PILES AND PILES of it.

[Stray Cat]

First, it was really a large event with two 'peaks' in activity...
A really large event that was never shown to be anything of substance.

Could you further qualify the statement "chasing their own tails", in reference to ANY of the pilots' reports?
By 'chasing their own tails', I mean going on a wild goose chase (not the kind of geese that Kenneth Arnold spotted) and looking for objects that were not there. In such cases a pilot being told "there must be something up there" may see a very distant light in the corner of his eye and start to manouver to go after it. When he's turned his plane around, the light he saw has gone, because what he saw from the corner of his eye was a ground based light, or a star. After he's turned he can see lights on the ground and stars but nothing in the position he's being told it is in by the radar operators. The fallibility of human perception can not be ruled out again.

[Psiload]

***snip***
The only other 'video' and sighting I would present would be the one from the late 80's early 90's taken during a Mexican military parade. A silver balloon looking object flies between a formation of helicopters. One unit breaks off to pursue but the object increases it rate of speed and escapes. The video famously appears in several U.F.O. documentaries.
***snip***

This video?

P07pYXPsJa8

Can't be... this video is much different than what you've described. Stickler for accuracy that you are, this can't possibly be the video in question.

[King of the Americas]

This video?

P07pYXPsJa8

Can't be... this video is much different than what you've described. Stickler for accuracy that you are, this can't possibly be the video in question.

It's similar...

[Stray Cat]

This event is or should be the most well known U.F.O. event...the video for this, remains both unsourced, and sans debunking, meaning that it may or may not b what it looks like.
It doesn't need debunking, it needs to be shown somehow to be genuine.
All the evidence available for it at the moment points to it not being contemporary of 1952. It isn't mentioned in any press reports about the incident, nor is it mentioned in Blue Book, which documents everything possible to do with the event in great detail. Further to this, not a single UFOlogist has ever been able to provide any logical or reasoned justification for using this footage as proof, nor any provenance for where it came from, who filmed it or when. In fact it's always simply stitched to articles about the story with no reference to it what so ever apart from maybe a caption implying that it is footage of the event.

If you wish to discard all this in order to maintain that this video is proof of the 1952 Washington UFO flap, you are classically employing wilfull ignorance.

[King of the Americas]

A really large event that was never shown to be anything of substance.


By 'chasing their own tails', I mean going on a wild goose chase (not the kind of geese that Kenneth Arnold spotted) and looking for objects that were not there. In such cases a pilot being told "there must be something up there" may see a very distant light in the corner of his eye and start to manouver to go after it. When he's turned his plane around, the light he saw has gone, because what he saw from the corner of his eye was a ground based light, or a star. After he's turned he can see lights on the ground and stars but nothing in the position he's being told it is in by the radar operators. The fallibility of human perception can not be ruled out again.

"..never shown to be anything of substance..."...?

:rolleyes:

Some pilots reported being toyed with, flown 'around', then left in the dust, persay.

The fallibility of ALL the human pilots AND equipment's perception of the U.F.O.'s that buzzed D.C. in '52- "SHOULD ABSOLUTELY BE RULED OUT."

...unless you are a skeptic, then you might feel comfortable employing the "Willful Ignorance Fallacy", wherein you can just ignore the evidence you don't like.

[Psiload]

It's similar...

No, that's the video. You have confabulated and embellished the event, as you are wont to do.

A textbook example of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony and anecdotal evidence.

I invite you to provide the "similar" video which shows events transpiring as you described above.

I await with breath unbated.

[Stray Cat]

"..never shown to be anything of substance..."...?
Indeed no substance. Some people thought they saw something or other.
A large event, that involved lots of people seeing some stuff they couldn't figure out.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Some pilots reported being toyed with, flown 'around', then left in the dust, persay.
Can you point to (link to) the parts in the original bluebook witness statements where these pilots reported this so I can refresh my memory thanks?.

The fallibility of ALL the human pilots AND equipment's perception of the U.F.O.'s that buzzed D.C. in '52- "SHOULD ABSOLUTELY BE RULED OUT."
...unless you are a skeptic, then you might feel comfortable employing the "Willful Ignorance Fallacy", wherein you can just ignore the evidence you don't like.
The thing about considering 'human perception fallibility' is that you don't ignore any evidence. Non of the evidence (that's not - one - single - part of it) has to be or indeed is ignored. There is no evidence that contradicts the possibility of human perception failure as playing a part in this event. Therefore willful ignorance doesn't come it from the sceptic PoV.

So please stop committing the "I'm making up false fallacies fallacy" :)

[aggle-rithm]

This event is or should be the most well known U.F.O. event...the video for this, remains both unsourced, and sans debunking, meaning that it may or may not b what it looks like.

The only other 'video' and sighting I would present would be the one from the late 80's early 90's taken during a Mexican military parade. A silver balloon looking object flies between a formation of helicopters. One unit breaks off to pursue but the object increases it rate of speed and escapes. The video famously appears in several U.F.O. documentaries.

I'd rather stay with the D.C. sightings in '52, as I think we have the most documentation and access to information.

Just like all woo claims...people insist there's something wonderful happening, but when we ask to SEE it, we are shown only the lamest of evidence.

It's always, "the perpetual motion machine was working last week!" or, "I'm always able to dowse out in the field!" or, "The ghosts come out when I'm by myself!" or, "I can bend spoons when no one is around!"

Or, in this case, "The UFO's did all kinds of crazy things when there were no cameras or credible witnesses available!"

[aggle-rithm]

I think you are wrong.

As has been stated there WERE 'different' U.F.O.'s in the air. This slow-moving formation was one set of them.


Here's where parsimony comes in again. You've got a bunch of people making reports of things in the sky...seemingly no two people report the same thing.

What's more likely: That many people have differing imaginations, or that there are many different unknown objects flying around?

Remember, the explanation with the fewest number of unknown entitites is usually the correct one.


THOUSANDS made the report of the slow-moving formation over the capitol.

Can you point me to a source for this claim? The Wikipedia article, which seems pretty credulous, doesn't mention this at all.

[Elizabeth I]

Well, maybe THAT is the point...?

To let each species rise, and ascend to some level of existence, then to join 'the gods' in he heavens...?

Leaving behind you, only tales of your existence...

*We DON'T have a single shred of evidence that this sort of thing has happened, we have PILES AND PILES of it.

It's similar...

Okay, it's official. You're a troll. You don't believe a word of what you post and you are doing it just to get a reaction.

I hope that, should you finally encounter your aliens/notaliens/gods/whateveryouarecallingthemtoday, they will not turn out to be from the anal probe tribe.

Although, come to think of it, they might simply be looking for the source of what you post.

[King of the Americas]

No, that's the video. You have confabulated and embellished the event, as you are wont to do.

A textbook example of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony and anecdotal evidence.

I invite you to provide the "similar" video which shows events transpiring as you described above.

I await with breath unbated.

No need, I'll concede that's the video...

[King of the Americas]

Okay, it's official. You're a troll. You don't believe a word of what you post and you are doing it just to get a reaction.

I hope that, should you finally encounter your aliens/notaliens/gods/whateveryouarecallingthemtoday, they will not turn out to be from the anal probe tribe.

Although, come to think of it, they might simply be looking for the source of what you post.

I object to being called a troll.

And I protest your assertion that I don't believe the things I write.

Go ride a horse.

[dafydd]

I object to being called a troll.

And I protest your assertion that I don't believe the things I write.

Go ride a horse.

Boring troll is becoming more boring by the day.

[dafydd]

I object to being called a troll.

And I protest your assertion that I don't believe the things I write.

Go ride a horse.

Horse riding is fun,that is not an insult. Troll must try harder.

[dlorde]

Is this the right thread for a mockery?

Did you want a 15 minute mockery or the full half hour?

[King of the Americas]

...


Can you point to (link to) the parts in the original bluebook witness statements where these pilots reported this so I can refresh my memory thanks?.

...

What have you been reading?

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/wash_nat/bb_1661.htm

[Psiload]

No need, I'll concede that's the video...

In that case, it appears we have a teachable moment here.

Your recollection of the events shown in that video differ significantly from what the video actually shows. Why is that?

And what does this tell us about the reliability of eyewitness testimony in general, and yours in particular?

[Stray Cat]

What have you been reading?

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/wash_nat/bb_1661.htm

Yes, those are same one's I have studied...
... But I meant can you point to the documents that state what you claimed:

Some pilots reported being toyed with, flown 'around', then left in the dust, persay.
Because those you linked to do not mention these things.

[aggle-rithm]

What have you been reading?

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/wash_nat/bb_1661.htm

I was reading up on the history of radar and I came across this interesting statement in Wikipedia:


By 1952, the CAA had begun its first routine use of radar for approach and departure control.


Radar had only been in use for about ten years in 1952. It was a new technology, and so a lot of people didn't have much experience with it.

It's interesting that now radar is an established technology, you just don't hear this sort of thing happening. You could conclude from this that the flying saucers are now stowed away in their hangars for whatever reason, or that the people and the equipment are just better at identifying what's up there.

[King of the Americas]

In that case, it appears we have a teachable moment here.

Your recollection of the events shown in that video differ significantly from what the video actually shows. Why is that?

And what does this tell us about the reliability of eyewitness testimony in general, and yours in particular?

Well, let's see. I remembered that a balloon looking U.F.O. intersected the flight pattern of helicopters, then I remembered one of them breaking out of the pattern to pursue.

What was my accuracy level?

Did the video I remembered cease to exist, or did I merely misremember a detail or two about the video.

---

Recently I had to have something engraved, and went to a local jeweler. Once, I entered the store, I immediately flashed on a memory I have, of seeing a diamond collection, in their upstairs area. I must have been 5 or 6 at the time. My mother took her wedding ring in to be appraised, and took my sister and I along.

Once we got to the store, my sister and I began to give the place our once over, going behind counters and past a set of velvet ropes that led past a security guard and upstairs. In the middle of this room was a large table, surrounded by more velvet ropes, on which was an open display case. Therein was a collection of diamonds, the center of which was the blue Hope Diamond.

Years later I saw a diamond documentary, that featured the diamond I saw, along with some others, in a display case exactly like the one I saw. At which I remarked, "Hey, I've SEEN that collection, my sister even touched the one in the middle." I was laughed at, and told this wasn't possible, that this collection would NEVER have been displayed so that 2 kids could get to them and even handle them. I chalked the memory up to a dream I mistook for reality.

Upon entering the store, I asked to speak with someone who had worked there for the longest time hoping to confirm or debunk my memory. I relayed my memory, and the mature woman, smiled and said you didn't make up the story. We still have the collection your remember...

The collection wasn't real. While it contained all the Vanderbilt Collection, displayed as they should be, they were just glass.

The point?

My memory, while flawed, wasn't fiction or a dream at all. I DID in fact see a diamond collection meant to represent the Hope Diamond and others.

My memory, while not perfect, is quite reliable.

[Stray Cat]

Well, let's see. I remembered that a balloon looking U.F.O. intersected the flight pattern of helicopters, then I remembered one of them breaking out of the pattern to pursue.
What would have been more accurate would be to say that during a massive parade a balloon floated around a bit, nowhere near any helicopters and because the helicopters were much higher than the balloon, they didn't even see it and therefore made no attempt to chase it.

But I guess if was described thus, it wouldn't have made it into so many UFO documentaries. :)

[RoboTimbo]

Well, let's see. I remembered that a balloon looking U.F.O. intersected the flight pattern of helicopters, then I remembered one of them breaking out of the pattern to pursue.

What was my accuracy level?

Did the video I remembered cease to exist, or did I merely misremember a detail or two about the video.
Here's what you said about it:
...A silver balloon looking object flies between a formation of helicopters. One unit breaks off to pursue but the object increases it rate of speed and escapes...
You "remembered" one unit breaking off to pursue and you "remembered" the object increasing its speed and you "remembered" it escaping.

In your memory of your memory, you only remembered remembering one of them breaking out of pattern to pursue. Funnily enough, you only had to go back one page in the thread to see what you had actually posted of your memory but you got even that wrong.

My memory, while not perfect, is quite reliable.
Your memory, while not perfect, is also not at all reliable. You didn't remember what you had posted yesterday!

[Psiload]

Well, let's see. I remembered that a balloon looking U.F.O. intersected the flight pattern of helicopters, then I remembered one of them breaking out of the pattern to pursue.

What was my accuracy level?

Did the video I remembered cease to exist, or did I merely misremember a detail or two about the video.


Confabulation. I suggest you look it up.

Recently I had to have something engraved, and went to a local jeweler. Once, I entered the store, I immediately flashed on a memory I have, of seeing a diamond collection, in their upstairs area. I must have been 5 or 6 at the time. My mother took her wedding ring in to be appraised, and took my sister and I along.

Once we got to the store, my sister and I began to give the place our once over, going behind counters and past a set of velvet ropes that led past a security guard and upstairs. In the middle of this room was a large table, surrounded by more velvet ropes, on which was an open display case. Therein was a collection of diamonds, the center of which was the blue Hope Diamond.

Years later I saw a diamond documentary, that featured the diamond I saw, along with some others, in a display case exactly like the one I saw. At which I remarked, "Hey, I've SEEN that collection, my sister even touched the one in the middle." I was laughed at, and told this wasn't possible, that this collection would NEVER have been displayed so that 2 kids could get to them and even handle them. I chalked the memory up to a dream I mistook for reality.


Really? You mean you didn't lash out angrily at the people who mocked you and refused to accept your testimony at face value? You didn't berate them for being closed-minded skeptics when they refused to believe that you had seen something extraordinary?

Hmmm... curious.

Upon entering the store, I asked to speak with someone who had worked there for the longest time hoping to confirm or debunk my memory. I relayed my memory, and the mature woman, smiled and said you didn't make up the story. We still have the collection your remember...

The collection wasn't real. While it contained all the Vanderbilt Collection, displayed as they should be, they were just glass.

The point?

My memory, while flawed, wasn't fiction or a dream at all. I DID in fact see a diamond collection meant to represent the Hope Diamond and others.

My memory, while not perfect, is quite reliable.


So, your memory of an event you had witnessed was such that you believed you had seen something extraordinary, but it turned out to be something which was actually something less than extraordinary, something actually quite mundane?

Hmm... curiouser and curiouser.

[EHocking]

...Therein was a collection of diamonds, the center of which was the blue Hope Diamond.
...
The collection wasn't real. While it contained all the Vanderbilt Collection, displayed as they should be, they were just glass.

The point?

My memory, while flawed, wasn't fiction or a dream at all. I DID in fact see a diamond collection meant to represent the Hope Diamond and others.

My memory, while not perfect, is quite reliable.Uh, I don't think so.

The Hope Diamond was never part of the Vanderbilt collection, therefore what you have just demonstrated is what you do quite a bit on this forum.
You are conflating misremembered personal memories and misremembered "facts" of some documentary you saw.

"One version of the Hope Diamond story states that when the sultan was deposed in 1909 he sold the diamond directly to Pierre Cartier. The other version, (which I believe and is on record as the true historical lineage), is that the Hope Diamond was sold on the London auction block in 1901 to a New York diamond dealer known as “Joseph Frankel’s Son.” The amount that it sold for was not recorded. However, it is recorded that (http://www.deleusejewelers.com/exhibit-reviews/the-hope-diamond/)at the same time the Hope Diamond was offered to W.K. Vanderbilt for the price of $500,000.00, but he did not purchase the diamond."

[aggle-rithm]

My memory, while not perfect, is quite reliable.

Congratulations, you're much like everyone else.

Without corroboration, none of us can take the accuracy of our memories for granted.

[King of the Americas]

Uh, I don't think so.

The Hope Diamond was never part of the Vanderbilt collection, therefore what you have just demonstrated is what you do quite a bit on this forum.
You are conflating misremembered personal memories and misremembered "facts" of some documentary you saw.

"One version of the Hope Diamond story states that when the sultan was deposed in 1909 he sold the diamond directly to Pierre Cartier. The other version, (which I believe and is on record as the true historical lineage), is that the Hope Diamond was sold on the London auction block in 1901 to a New York diamond dealer known as “Joseph Frankel’s Son.” The amount that it sold for was not recorded. However, it is recorded that (http://www.deleusejewelers.com/exhibit-reviews/the-hope-diamond/)at the same time the Hope Diamond was offered to W.K. Vanderbilt for the price of $500,000.00, but he did not purchase the diamond."

Show me a picture of how the Hope Diamond is and has been displayed, along side other great stones?

That said I concede that it was not part of the "Vanderbilt Collection".

[Psiload]

Show me a picture of how the Hope Diamond is and has been displayed, along side other great stones?

That said I concede that it was not part of the "Vanderbilt Collection".



Yet another teachable moment.

[King of the Americas]

Confabulation. I suggest you look it up.




Really? You mean you didn't lash out angrily at the people who mocked you and refused to accept your testimony at face value? You didn't berate them for being closed-minded skeptics when they refused to believe that you had seen something extraordinary?

Hmmm... curious.




So, your memory of an event you had witnessed was such that you believed you had seen something extraordinary, but it turned out to be something which was actually something less than extraordinary, something actually quite mundane?

Hmm... curiouser and curiouser.

In both cases, my detractors were wrong.

I saw 'something', that was made to look exactly as my memory captured it. I saw the Hope Diamond, and some surrounding stones.

That my 5-6 year old eyes and memory 'captured' that accurately, was and is astonishing to me.

I HAD written it off, simply because it should have been impossible, that I saw what I did. That diamond has been in the Smithsonian, and well beyond arms reach for some time.

That my memory was 'confirmed', NOT debunked, is my observation.

It was NOT a fiction, dream, or hallucination.

That a 5 or 6 year old was unable to recognize a 'fake' is hardly relevant.

[Psiload]

In both cases, my detractors were wrong.

I saw 'something', that was made to look exactly as my memory captured it. I saw the Hope Diamond, and some surrounding stones.

That my 5-6 year old eyes and memory 'captured' that accurately, was and is astonishing to me.

I HAD written it off, simply because it should have been impossible, that I saw what I did. That diamond has been in the Smithsonian, and well beyond arms reach for some time.

***snip***

If only you could allow yourself to accept the fact that it is far more possible that your sister touched the Hope Diamond as a child, than what you saw on that other occasion was aircraft piloted by ETs.

You see, the Hope Diamond actually exists.

But, I'm sure this is just one more teachable moment wasted on an unteachable.

[aggle-rithm]

If only you could allow yourself to accept the fact that it is far more possible that your sister touched the Hope Diamond as a child, than what you saw on that other occasion was aircraft piloted by ETs.


Hey, hey!

Not ET's! "Heavenly Agents", or "Gods" if you prefer.

Sheesh....ET's. How ridiculous. ;)

[aggle-rithm]

In both cases, my detractors were wrong.

I saw 'something', that was made to look exactly as my memory captured it. I saw the Hope Diamond, and some surrounding stones.


One accurate memory doesn't mean all your memories are accurate.

I have pretty accurate memories of a visit to the state Capitol building when I was three years old. However, I remembered the stairs as being white. When I saw it again ten years later, I was disconcerted to find that they were black. I thought they must have been painted, but soon learned that had been black since being built in the 19th century.

Other than that, the memories were surprisingly accurate.

That doesn't stop me from being frightfully and disturbingly wrong about the details of favorite movies I rewatched after not having seen them for years. I'm talking about memories that I was certain were accurate, but my certainty was no guarantee of accuracy. I mention movies because this is a situation where it is easy to corroborate your memory against reality...but with other memories it's not always so easy.

[EHocking]

Show me a picture of how the Hope Diamond is and has been displayed, along side other great stones?No.

This post (as well as others) was sufficient to demonstrate that;
You are conflating misremembered personal memories and misremembered "facts" of some documentary you saw.
Yet you still argue that your memory is infallible and this is sufficient evidence for any of your assertions on this forum.

[carlitos]

10 years of trolling based on one story about lights in the sky. That takes focus. He's trying to broaden his horizons here with these other stories, and it's leading to trouble. He should stay focused on his main thing.

[King of the Americas]

10 years of trolling based on one story about lights in the sky. That takes focus. He's trying to broaden his horizons here with these other stories, and it's leading to trouble. He should stay focused on his main thing.

What about this thread or my behavior has been "trolling"...?

I'd like to urge you to take such baseless personal attacks, and ***** **** ** **** ***.

[King of the Americas]

...

Yet you still argue that your memory is infallible and this is sufficient evidence for any of your assertions on this forum.

I do not hold that my memory is infallible.

Read just above, where I said as much.

While my memory may be flawed, it is still quite reliable.

[King of the Americas]

One accurate memory doesn't mean all your memories are accurate.

I have pretty accurate memories of a visit to the state Capitol building when I was three years old. However, I remembered the stairs as being white. When I saw it again ten years later, I was disconcerted to find that they were black. I thought they must have been painted, but soon learned that had been black since being built in the 19th century.

Other than that, the memories were surprisingly accurate.

That doesn't stop me from being frightfully and disturbingly wrong about the details of favorite movies I rewatched after not having seen them for years. I'm talking about memories that I was certain were accurate, but my certainty was no guarantee of accuracy. I mention movies because this is a situation where it is easy to corroborate your memory against reality...but with other memories it's not always so easy.

Lighting and perspective are to blame for your different colored capitol.

Interesting that one mistake in memory recollection was enough to taint all of the rest of my memories.

Yet, when I demonstrated my REALLY long-term memory accuracy, that means nothing...

[King of the Americas]

If only you could allow yourself to accept the fact that it is far more possible that your sister touched the Hope Diamond as a child, than what you saw on that other occasion was aircraft piloted by ETs.

You see, the Hope Diamond actually exists.

But, I'm sure this is just one more teachable moment wasted on an unteachable.

Oh, how the intellectually mighty have fallen...

What basis did you make your initial assertion from?

After everything that's been posted, why do you 'think'/'believe' E.T. piloted craft are such an impossibility???

[Cuddles]

While my memory may be flawed, it is still quite reliable.

Could you point us to just a single example of your memory being reliable? As demonstrated several times just in this thread, you appear unable to even remember what you said just a day earlier. As has been discussed at length, you account of your UFO encounter has changed significantly, your account of seeing some jewels has just been shown to be incorrect, and the list goes on. We even have explicit statements from you that you have a terrible memory. No-one has a perfect memory, but it seems that yours is significantly worse than most.

Yet, when I demonstrated my REALLY long-term memory accuracy, that means nothing...

You have never demonstrated this. Looks like your memory is playing up again.

Incidentally, does anyone remember this:
So, lets pretend for a moment
Why all the worry about how good your memory is when everything in this thread is supposed to be made up anyway? You wouldn't have lied about what you wanted to discuss and then tried to change the subject, would you?

[Agatha]

Because "E.T.s" have never been demonstrated to exist.

[Psiload]

Oh, how the intellectually mighty have fallen...

What basis did you make your initial assertion from?

After everything that's been posted, why do you 'think'/'believe' E.T. piloted craft are such an impossibility???

I never used the word impossible, now did I?

I think ET piloted craft are highly unlikely due to the fact that evidence of their existence is scant and unverifiable, and reports of their existence often come from people who are prone to confabulation. Like say you, for example.

[aggle-rithm]

Lighting and perspective are to blame for your different colored capitol.


No...my interpretation of the memory is to blame.

That's what memory recall is, an interpretation of past events. That's why it is so fallible.

ETA: You misunderstand the problem of memory. It's not that we perceive things wrong in the first place; it's that when we recall the memory much later it can become garbled and confused with other thoughts and memories.


Interesting that one mistake in memory recollection was enough to taint all of the rest of my memories.


It doesn't taint anything, it demonstrates that memory is fallible.


Yet, when I demonstrated my REALLY long-term memory accuracy, that means nothing...

Yes, it does, because one corroborated memory does not prove that all your memories are accurate.


ETA: To sum up: One inaccurate memory is enough to demonstrate that memories can be inaccurate, but one accurate memory is insufficient to demonstrate that all memory is accurate, or even likely to be accurate.

[aggle-rithm]

Oh, how the intellectually mighty have fallen...

What basis did you make your initial assertion from?

After everything that's been posted, why do you 'think'/'believe' E.T. piloted craft are such an impossibility???

Not impossible, just so highly improbable that, unless you have solid evidence to the contrary, it can be ruled out as an explanation for mysterious sightings.

[King of the Americas]

Could you point us to just a single example of your memory being reliable? As demonstrated several times just in this thread, you appear unable to even remember what you said just a day earlier. As has been discussed at length, you account of your UFO encounter has changed significantly, your account of seeing some jewels has just been shown to be incorrect, and the list goes on. We even have explicit statements from you that you have a terrible memory. No-one has a perfect memory, but it seems that yours is significantly worse than most.



You have never demonstrated this. Looks like your memory is playing up again.

Incidentally, does anyone remember this:

Why all the worry about how good your memory is when everything in this thread is supposed to be made up anyway? You wouldn't have lied about what you wanted to discuss and then tried to change the subject, would you?

Stop lying, liar.

ETA:

-My U.F.O. account didn't "change dramatically"

-My memory of seeing my sister pick up A Hope Diamond was also accurate.

You are misrepresenting the facts, and are making unfounded assertions about me and the record I have presented.

YOU ARE LYING.

Please stop.

[King of the Americas]

Because "E.T.s" have never been demonstrated to exist.

Only if you employ the "Willful Ignorance Fallacy"...

[RoboTimbo]

Stop lying, liar.

While I don't think you're a troll, you should know that the above is uncivil and can be infracted unless you post some evidence to support it. Otherwise, it's just name-calling.

[King of the Americas]

I never used the word impossible, now did I?

I think ET piloted craft are highly unlikely due to the fact that evidence of their existence is scant and unverifiable, and reports of their existence often come from people who are prone to confabulation. Like say you, for example.

In order to arrive at highly unlikely, you'd HAVE to first discount, debunk, or otherwise discredit ALL of the anecdotes LIKE MINE, and the hundreds of thousands that have happened throughout the ages.

Personally, I think it is highly unlikely that ALL of these anecdotes, observations, pictures, video, and paintings are all pure fiction.

THAT is a leap of faith, I am simply not willing to take.

So, the ONLY thing that leads you to this conclusion, is that 'they' are good at not being found and studied...

That pretty weak, buddy.

[King of the Americas]

While I don't think you're a troll, you should know that the above is uncivil and can be infracted unless you post some evidence to support it. Otherwise, it's just name-calling.

Thank you for pointing out my error.

I will make sure I include the 'lies' being told, when I point out that someone is a liar.

[RoboTimbo]

Thank you for pointing out my error.

I will make sure I include the 'lies' being told, when I point out that someone is a liar.

You may want to start with that one above.

[aggle-rithm]

-my u.f.o. Account didn't "change dramatically"


how do you know??

[King of the Americas]

You may want to start with that one above.

I did.

[King of the Americas]

how do you know??

My account has been consistent...sans "6" becoming "7".

[aggle-rithm]

Personally, I think it is highly unlikely that ALL of these anecdotes, observations, pictures, video, and paintings are all pure fiction.

THAT is a leap of faith, I am simply not willing to take.



I agree that this is highly unlikely. However, no one is making that argument.

Some of the anecdotes, observations, etc., undoubtedly do indeed represent actual events, just not described accurately due to misperception or failure of memory, which are very well-understood phenomena.

Some are products of the imagination that were never intended to be understood in any other way.

Some are outright lies.

In any event, it is fallacious to say that the only two options are: 1) Every story about unexplained lights in the sky is fiction, and 2) Heavenly agents live among us. It's a false dilemma.

[aggle-rithm]

My account has been consistent...sans "6" becoming "7".

Do you have a recorded account made within a year of the sighting?

The study done on "where were you when Challenger exploded" demonstrated that one year was sufficient to skew memories significantly.

[GeeMack]

In order to arrive at highly unlikely, you'd HAVE to first discount, debunk, or otherwise discredit ALL of the anecdotes LIKE MINE, and the hundreds of thousands that have happened throughout the ages.


No. In order to come to any conclusion other than the existence of ET piloted craft being highly unlikely, it would have to be shown that ET piloted craft actually exist. The anecdotes do not show that. Anecdotes are stories, tales, verbal descriptions of alleged events. It is not scientifically or skeptically rational to base one's belief in something's existence on anecdotes.

Personally, I think it is highly unlikely that ALL of these anecdotes, observations, pictures, video, and paintings are all pure fiction.

THAT is a leap of faith, I am simply not willing to take.


That argument from incredulity has been tried, noted, and subsequently rejected hundreds of times throughout this thread. The fact that any individual or group of people believes or disbelieves some particular thing has absolutely no bearing on its actual existence.

So, the ONLY thing that leads you to this conclusion, is that 'they' are good at not being found and studied...

That pretty weak, buddy.


"They" are so good at not being found and studied that "they" have never been found and studied. Of course the same can be said for Bigfoot, leprechauns, gods, and demons. It is sane and intelligent to conclude that since "they" have never been found and studied, even though "they" allegedly cruise around in some kind of vehicles in our skies, it is unlikely that "they" exist... all arguments from incredulity and ignorance notwithstanding.

[Waterman]

In both cases, my detractors were wrong.

I saw 'something', that was made to look exactly as my memory captured it. I saw the Hope Diamond, and some surrounding stones.

That my 5-6 year old eyes and memory 'captured' that accurately, was and is astonishing to me.

I HAD written it off, simply because it should have been impossible, that I saw what I did. That diamond has been in the Smithsonian, and well beyond arms reach for some time.

That my memory was 'confirmed', NOT debunked, is my observation.

It was NOT a fiction, dream, or hallucination.

That a 5 or 6 year old was unable to recognize a 'fake' is hardly relevant.

Actually this is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier. Separting interpretations of the event from the events themselves. While you were there I am sure that you were accompanied by one or more adults and they probalby were discussing the collection and in that conversation I am sure that it came up that it was a 'display only' and that it would be OK for kids to handle. You memory of the event is not perfect enough to include that conversation (unless the adults were playing up tht it was ral for the effect on the kids). As the memory of the event comes back you have only partial recollection and "knew" that she handled the actual Hope Diamond. OK so the visual took place but your interpetation of it was false and was demonstrationed to be false as the diamond was fake.

That was what people are trying to say, you witnessed something in the past and that memory of that event cannot be complete or perfect. You have extrapolated from what was observed to imply more than what you actually witnessed. Lights moving in a funny way does NOT equal intelligently piloted craft.

[Waterman]

In order to arrive at highly unlikely, you'd HAVE to first discount, debunk, or otherwise discredit ALL of the anecdotes LIKE MINE, and the hundreds of thousands that have happened throughout the ages.

Personally, I think it is highly unlikely that ALL of these anecdotes, observations, pictures, video, and paintings are all pure fiction.

THAT is a leap of faith, I am simply not willing to take.

So, the ONLY thing that leads you to this conclusion, is that 'they' are good at not being found and studied...

That pretty weak, buddy.

Actually the burden of proof is on the people claiming something previously unknown. We have depictions of objects in the sky that could be intended to prepresent any number of things, gods, comets, spirits, cool cloud formations, designs the painter liked or just interpreations of randoms shapes. I looked at one of your links and noted several that were really really stretching to be considered to be the depiction of a scaucer shape craft.

We also cannot assess on what percentage of the old impages can be considered as non-human powered craft (NHPC) until we can extablish a relationship between the sightings of confirmed mundane phenomenon and confirmed NHPC (after eliminating all the entires of insufficient information available to make a determination). So far the confirmed NHPC list stands at exactly 0.

[King of the Americas]

I agree that this is highly unlikely. However, no one is making that argument.

Some of the anecdotes, observations, etc., undoubtedly do indeed represent actual events, just not described accurately due to misperception or failure of memory, which are very well-understood phenomena.

Some are products of the imagination that were never intended to be understood in any other way.

Some are outright lies.

In any event, it is fallacious to say that the only two options are: 1) Every story about unexplained lights in the sky is fiction, and 2) Heavenly agents live among us. It's a false dilemma.

And some anecdotes are made by professional spotters, pilots, and even astronauts that depict the reality of an advanced technology intelligently controlled, in our heavens.

That you failed to list this last, fully reasonable, and most likely scenario means that you were again employing the "Willful Ignorance Fallacy".

You CAN and SHOULD discount the discountable.

But you haven't, can't, and likely won't do so with 100% of the reported sightings.

And it is the most experienced, knowledgeable sightings that you're IGNORING.

That %, whatever the number represents THE reality, that there are indeed advanced beings, just beyond arms' reach...

[aggle-rithm]

And some anecdotes are made by professional spotters, pilots, and even astronauts that depict the reality of an advanced technology intelligently controlled, in our heavens.


Professional spotters, pilots, and astronauts can be wrong. In fact, they can be spectacularly wrong.

This is a far more likely explanation than some unknown intelligent race. After all, we KNOW people can be wrong, even professionals.

[King of the Americas]

...

... Lights moving in a funny way does NOT equal intelligently piloted craft.

I did NOT see 'lights move in a funny way'.

I saw "star-like objects move in 'coordination' with one another, and at one point two vectored toward each other, and then 'combined' to form a 4-fold larger version of themselves"...

What I saw weren't random or 'funny' movements.

Please stop misrepresenting what I witnessed.

[aggle-rithm]

Please stop misrepresenting what I witnessed.

You don't know what you witnessed, you only know what you remember. What you remember can be wrong.

Did you write down your experience somewhere recently after it occurred, so you have something to compare your memory to?

[King of the Americas]

Professional spotters, pilots, and astronauts can be wrong. In fact, they can be spectacularly wrong.

This is a far more likely explanation than some unknown intelligent race. After all, we KNOW people can be wrong, even professionals.

Yep, they CAN be wrong.

LOTS of people CAN be wrong.

Some are LESS likely to be wrong than others, especially if they receive training in that field.

Your side REQUIRES that you discount 100% of ALL the anecdotes, even among the most highly trained and experienced pilots and aircraft spotters.

Rather than suggest that NO ONE is capable of making an accurate report, I think the simplest answer is that we've misinterpreted the reports.

[aggle-rithm]

Your side REQUIRES that you discount 100% of ALL the anecdotes, even among the most highly trained and experienced pilots and aircraft spotters.


Easily done!

Anecdotes are stories that may or may not be true. Therefore, they are useless as evidence.

Therefore, 100% of anecdotes are discounted.

[King of the Americas]

You don't know what you witnessed, you only know what you remember. What you remember can be wrong.

Did you write down your experience somewhere recently after it occurred, so you have something to compare your memory to?

All that we have available are the account(s) I've provided here, over the years.

The ONLY change that has occurred were the total number of objects changed from "6" to "7".

[King of the Americas]

Easily done!

Anecdotes are stories that may or may not be true. Therefore, they are useless as evidence.

Therefore, 100% of anecdotes are discounted.

This is a perfect example of the "Willful Ignorance Fallacy"...

[aggle-rithm]

All that we have available are the account(s) I've provided here, over the years.

The ONLY change that has occurred were the total number of objects changed from "6" to "7".

How many years after the event was the first account recorded?

[aggle-rithm]

This is a perfect example of the "Willful Ignorance Fallacy"...

There's nothing fallacious about willfully ignoring poor evidence.

[carlitos]

I looked for that journal, but was unable to find it, which means it is in storage.


I really don't know...

I mean, it 'seems' as though I posted the story there initially. Then one of the posters there told me about this place.

And, I do know where my journal, or rather that edition of it, is. It is in a box marked personal books, in the back left corner of a storage locker, atop an old manual sewing machine.
I wrote down the events within a few days of the occurrence so I am not relying solely on long term memory.
I haven't seen that journal for years...


Good times. :)

There's nothing fallacious about willfully ignoring poor evidence.
What would be good if someone could name the fallacy where the poster makes up a fallacy, puts it in quotes and then quotes themselves referring to their made-up fallacy.

[bruto]

What would be good if someone could name the fallacy where the poster makes up a fallacy, puts it in quotes and then quotes themselves referring to their made-up fallacy.
The fa-la-la-la-lallacy. Often accompanied by fingers in ears and loud humming.

[Psiload]

I did NOT see 'lights move in a funny way'.

I saw "star-like objects move in 'coordination' with one another, and at one point two vectored toward each other, and then 'combined' to form a 4-fold larger version of themselves"...

What I saw weren't random or 'funny' movements.

Please stop misrepresenting what I witnessed.


And did a helicopter break formation and chase the star-like object only to be left in the dust when the object rapidly accelerated? Oh wait, sorry. That was the other thing you witnessed and then misrepresented.

[EHocking]

I do not hold that my memory is infallible.

Read just above, where I said as much.

While my memory may be flawed, it is still quite reliable.My response to this post, considering those that followed, is for all and intents superfluous, but what the hell...

[Stray Cat]

Yep, they CAN be wrong.

LOTS of people CAN be wrong.

Some are LESS likely to be wrong than others, especially if they receive training in that field.
It's odd how you seem to be able get some sort of grip on the probability of people being wrong (even if it's a distorted one), and yet you fail to see that unless you can verify which people are wrong and when they are wrong compared to when they are right, their testimonies are useless. Because there is no criteria we can use objectively to determine an eye witnesses account on it's own (without some sort of physical corroboration), then anything they say has to be treat with caution. Especially when what they say is going against what science knows and understands already.

Your side REQUIRES that you discount 100% of ALL the anecdotes, even among the most highly trained and experienced pilots and aircraft spotters.
Shifting the burden of proof again. ("Your side" needs to provide just one single conclusive account).
And the appeal to authority too.

Rather than suggest that NO ONE is capable of making an accurate report, I think the simplest answer is that we've misinterpreted the reports.
No one is suggesting that no one is capable of making an accurate report.
What people are suggesting is that there is no way of knowing if someone had made an accurate report or not. That may be good enough to shore up your belief driven system that allows for ET/Sky Gos/Whatevers, but science doesn't work like that and ultimately, UFOs flying around in our sky is a matter for science that should be investigated in a scientific manner.

[Toke]

Your side REQUIRES that you discount 100% of ALL the anecdotes, even among the most highly trained and experienced pilots and aircraft spotters.

I recall something about how even a really big pile of manure will not turn to gold, or maybe I got it wrong. :)

[GeeMack]

Yep, they CAN be wrong.

LOTS of people CAN be wrong.

Some are LESS likely to be wrong than others, especially if they receive training in that field.

Your side REQUIRES that you discount 100% of ALL the anecdotes, even among the most highly trained and experienced pilots and aircraft spotters.


When the most highly trained and experienced pilots and aircraft spotters see something, or think they see something, and don't know what it is, the only reasonable interpretation of their anecdotes is that they saw something, or believed they saw something, and didn't know what it was. It would not be sane or intelligent to make any more of it than that.

Rather than suggest that NO ONE is capable of making an accurate report, I think the simplest answer is that we've misinterpreted the reports.


The simplest thing to make of a report of something the witness can't identify is that the witness saw, or believed he/she saw something which they were unable to identify. It is not rational to make a leap from unidentified to any particular thing.

Oh, and the silly argument that anything, 100% or otherwise, is required to be interpreted a certain way is dishonest.

[TheGoldcountry]

I think that must of us here recognize the POSSIBILITY of extraterristrial life, yet we personally require more evidence than one person's observation. Please respond, I want other arguments.

[King of the Americas]

How many years after the event was the first account recorded?

I wrote about it on message boards both the THSMB and JREF both have been erased by time itself. All that we have are my recollections here from the past several years. Wherein my discrepancies were "5" to "6", in my numbering them.

(*I have a journal entry, written within days of the event. It is in a storage locker, as I have yet to find it in any of my home storage boxes. That said, I will NOT provide it here, in whole or in part, period. My journal is my own.)

[King of the Americas]

And did a helicopter break formation and chase the star-like object only to be left in the dust when the object rapidly accelerated? Oh wait, sorry. That was the other thing you witnessed and then misrepresented.

Didn't I say THAT U.F.O. was "balloon-like"...?

Or are YOU misremembering things now?

In the video I remember, a helicopter DOES pursue the object. Is there more to that video?

[King of the Americas]

It's odd how you seem to be able get some sort of grip on the probability of people being wrong (even if it's a distorted one), and yet you fail to see that unless you can verify which people are wrong and when they are wrong compared to when they are right, their testimonies are useless. Because there is no criteria we can use objectively to determine an eye witnesses account on it's own (without some sort of physical corroboration), then anything they say has to be treat with caution. Especially when what they say is going against what science knows and understands already.


Shifting the burden of proof again. ("Your side" needs to provide just one single conclusive account).
And the appeal to authority too.


No one is suggesting that no one is capable of making an accurate report.
What people are suggesting is that there is no way of knowing if someone had made an accurate report or not. That may be good enough to shore up your belief driven system that allows for ET/Sky Gos/Whatevers, but science doesn't work like that and ultimately, UFOs flying around in our sky is a matter for science that should be investigated in a scientific manner.

So your argument is if we can't test whether or not you've seen U.F.O.'s, then we don't know how good you might be at spotting them?

That you literally think there is NOT ONE reliable, tested, experienced pilot and or spotter, CAPABLE identifying all known aircraft is willful ignorance...

LOTS of people who have reported U.F.O.'s are of a credible experienced nature, and you discount ALL of those, for merely being potentially wrong.

So you dismiss EVERY class of reporter, and every report made.

That's crazy, man...

It is "wrong-headed", fallacious,...it's willful ignorance at its finest.

STOP DOING THAT.

[TheGoldcountry]

So your argument is if we can't test whether or not you've seen U.F.O.'s, then we don't know how good you might be at spotting them?

That you literally think there is NOT ONE reliable, tested, experienced pilot and or spotter, CAPABLE identifying all known aircraft is willful ignorance...

LOTS of people who have reported U.F.O.'s are of a credible experienced nature, and you discount ALL of those, for merely being potentially wrong.

So you dismiss EVERY class of reporter, and every report made.

That's crazy, man...

It is "wrong-headed", fallacious,...it's willful ignorance at its finest.

STOP DOING THAT.

No one here is dismissing ANYTHING. Personal observations such as your own have been made for hundreds of years. I, personally, don't doubt what you BELIEVE you have seen, but I, as an individual, require more proof than what you vehemently espouse as "truth."

[TheGoldcountry]

It isn't "willlful ignorance" either. Most of the posters here are open-minded about different subjects, but some of us need more evidence than your own eyesight observations.

[Sean84]

Hello again, thread that will not die. Anything new?

Looking up = Aliens

Sorry, that's just plain dumb.

Ta!

[Stray Cat]

So your argument is if we can't test whether or not you've seen U.F.O.'s, then we don't know how good you might be at spotting them?
No. Spotting UFO's is really really easy. All you have to is look upwards and spot something you can not identify. There is no training you could ever need in order to accomplish such a simple task. No one person is better than another person at doing this as the only criteria required is that the person can not identify the object they see flying.

That you literally think there is NOT ONE reliable, tested, experienced pilot and or spotter, CAPABLE identifying all known aircraft is willful ignorance...
Again no. That some people are quite capable of identifying flying objects is very apparent when you take into the consideration all the flying objects that people see everyday, that they positively identify as planes, clouds, planets, blimps, birds, satellites, search lights, balloons, chinese lanterns etc.
What you are dealing with is a very small minority of cases where the information was not good enough to positively identify what object was flying or where the observer could have perceived the situation incorrectly, or could have been hallucinating or many other complications that would need ruling out. Having ruled all these out, you would still only be left with an object that hadn't been identified. This still does not make it an alien flying saucer.

LOTS of people who have reported U.F.O.'s are of a credible experienced nature, and you discount ALL of those, for merely being potentially wrong.
No one is any more credible than anyone else at spotting something they can not identify.

So you dismiss EVERY class of reporter, and every report made.
That's a slight misrepresentation.
I look into the cases to see how they could possibly be confirmed as positive sightings. When they can not, I dismiss them, but I'm still looking for the one that might be verified as genuine.


It is "wrong-headed", fallacious,...it's willful ignorance at its finest.
It's not willful ignorance at all.
How can using science method be willful ignorance?

I'm not ignoring anything, I'm only using what we know scientifically and applying it to these reports.
You on the other hand are having to ignore what we know about the fallibility of human perception and memory and applying a case of special pleading in order that people lower their standards of evidence in order to accept these cases where there wasn't enough information to make a positive identification in order to arrive at a conclusion that is made upon so many assumptions that it's about as unscientific as you could get.

[EHocking]

Hello again, thread that will not die. Anything new?

Looking up = Aliens

Sorry, that's just plain dumb.And it'll drown your turkeys.

[GeeMack]

The ONLY change that has occurred were the total number of objects changed from "6" to "7".


And less than 10 hours later...

I wrote about it on message boards both the THSMB and JREF both have been erased by time itself. All that we have are my recollections here from the past several years. Wherein my discrepancies were "5" to "6", in my numbering them.


Let the record show that the witness cannot credibly remember an incident or event for even 10 hours. Any claims to have a clear memory of an incident some years ago are rejected.

[aggle-rithm]

I wrote about it on message boards both the THSMB and JREF both have been erased by time itself. All that we have are my recollections here from the past several years. Wherein my discrepancies were "5" to "6", in my numbering them.

(*I have a journal entry, written within days of the event. It is in a storage locker, as I have yet to find it in any of my home storage boxes. That said, I will NOT provide it here, in whole or in part, period. My journal is my own.)

That's a good plan. I recommend you not look at it even in private, unless you want to find out your memories are far more fallible than you think they are.

[King of the Americas]

...

... alien flying saucer.


No one is any more credible than anyone else at spotting something they can not identify.


That's a slight misrepresentation.
I look into the cases to see how they could possibly be confirmed as positive sightings. When they can not, I dismiss them, but I'm still looking for the one that might be verified as genuine.

...

First, I do not believe in 'aliens', please don't assert that I do. "E.T.'s" are fine, but I'd prefer technologically advanced non-humans.

Someone who makes a living identifying, and understanding the vector and approach speeds of various aircraft, WOULD BE MORE QUALIFIED, to say what was and wasn't a U.F.O., compared to someone who's never been to an airport.

If you, to date, have not seen convincing evidence, then you are ignoring the stuff that's been presented to you.

To arrive at 'they don't exist', you'd have to dismiss EVERY account from EVERY source, EVER.

EVERY mention, video, photograph, and EVERY class of witness, from every corner of history.

That seems terribly ignorant, to me. That doesn't seem reasonable or logical.

[King of the Americas]

No one here is dismissing ANYTHING. Personal observations such as your own have been made for hundreds of years. I, personally, don't doubt what you BELIEVE you have seen, but I, as an individual, require more proof than what you vehemently espouse as "truth."

So, what was it that I saw? What has been seen, in our heavens, since history itself began?

Are we seeing clouds, falling stars, advanced military aircraft?

Have you read the description I gave?

If that is what I saw, what would it represent to you?

Do you disagree with the "technologically advanced non-humans" label? Did I see "God", instead?

What in your head, would or could 'combine with another, to form a 4-fold larger version of themselves'...?

If THAT is what I saw, what does that mean?

[King of the Americas]

It isn't "willlful ignorance" either. Most of the posters here are open-minded about different subjects, but some of us need more evidence than your own eyesight observations.

What does the "2" '52 D.C. sightings mean to you?

[Cuddles]

-My U.F.O. account didn't "change dramatically"

Yes it did, as demonstrated in this thread and others.

-My memory of seeing my sister pick up A Hope Diamond was also accurate.

No it wasn't, since you remembered it being part of a collection that it was never in.

Edit: And I should add there that since there is exactly zero actual evidence that such a thing ever happened, you certainly cannot claim it was accurate. Your memory is not evidence of your memory being accurate. In order to show that you would need actual evidence that you and your sister were ever even there, and that she actually picked anything up. Of course, this is exactly the same as your claims of aliens - you have nothing other than a single memory with no supporting evidence. You believe this to be more than enough despite plentiful evidence, and your own admission, that your memory is simply terrible. No-one else does. The only difference is that it is at least plausible that you have a sister, and that said sister might have touched some fake jewels once, since both of those things are know to exist. On the other hand, your alien claims don't even make sense, let alone have anything to suggest that they could be vaguely plausible.

You are misrepresenting the facts, and are making unfounded assertions about me and the record I have presented.

YOU ARE LYING.

Please stop.

You do realise that just yelling "liar" over and over again in response to people pointing out your own lies and flawed claims really isn't going to convince anyone you're vaguely rational. Most people grow out of this kind of behaviour by the time they're in their teens, so it's really rather sad to watch coming from a grown man. Obviously I am not lying, as anyone capable of actually reading this thread can see. However, since one of your main problems is your inability to actually remember what has been posted, or to go back and check even just one page previously, I can see why you're having trouble there. Unfortunately for you, this just reinforces the point that your memories are totally unreliable.

[King of the Americas]

Yes it did, as demonstrated in this thread and others.



No it wasn't, since you remembered it being part of a collection that it was never in.



You do realise that just yelling "liar" over and over again in response to people pointing out your own lies and flawed claims really isn't going to convince anyone you're vaguely rational. Most people grow out of this kind of behaviour by the time they're in their teens, so it's really rather sad to watch coming from a grown man. Obviously I am not lying, as anyone capable of actually reading this thread can see. However, since one of your main problems is your inability to actually remember what has been posted, or to go back and check even just one page previously, I can see why you're having trouble there. Unfortunately for you, this just reinforces the point that your memories are totally unreliable.

First, please explain to me how "6" becoming "7" is dramatically changing my story? See I don't understand that. Saying that ONE mistake, given the whole of the story told, represents a "dramatic change" is a clear mis-representation of the truth of the matter. It is utterly FALSE to say or suggest that my story has "dramatically changed". That said, maybe I am wrong... Could you qualify what is and is not a dramatic change?

Second, I misnamed the collection, this particular Hope Diamond replica was a part of. The point of my story, was to demonstrate that my extreme long-term memory IS intact. I saw my sister handle 'A' Hope Diamond. I had previously held the memory as a fiction, or dream that I had. THIS WAS NOT THE CASE. My memory was of an actual event, even if my 5-6 year old eyes were incapable of identifying a faux.

ETA: What I can and can't prove on a message board is meaningless. I have been honest, straight forward, and willing and able to answer any and all serious queries about both my memories and my experiences. That 'you' don't value my anecdote doesn't bother me in the least. Your unwillingness to accept other people's reports about this world and the things in it, is all on you... Willful ignorance won't serve your search for truth. In fact, it will only hurt those endeavors. That said, if you are unable to believe me, get out of my thread. I have no use for you here.

The last thing I'll say to you, is that I don't agree with how you conduct yourself, as a debater. I think that your arguments are mis-representations of what I really said, and what I repeatedly posted. You can call your behavior whatever you like, but when you mis-represent other people's statement, that's lying in my book.

[bruto]

I think that it's interesting, and telling, that KotA uses as his example of how reliable his memory can be, a prime example of how unreliable even a good memory can be when it comes to interpretation.

People are very good at this. It's hard wired into us, I think, to be able to jump to conclusions from insufficient evidence. It allows us to drive cars down a busy street, to recognize old friends, and so forth. If we (or our ancestors) saw a movement in the weeds, the penalty for thinking it's a tiger and running like hell when it's really just a gust of wind is very small compared to the penalty for stopping to analyze when it really is a tiger. That's all fine, until we get to the post-event analysis. That's when we have to remember that what we think we saw may not be what we did see.

KotA, you thought you saw the Hope diamond, but you did not. You are providing us with the perfect example of an accurate memory leading to error, because you continue to be unable or unwilling to separate the truth of the visual information you receive from the inference of what it actually represents.

[Psiload]

Didn't I say THAT U.F.O. was "balloon-like"...?

Or are YOU misremembering things now?

In the video I remember, a helicopter DOES pursue the object. Is there more to that video?

No, that's the video in its entirety. I have seen it myself on various UFO documentaries. It's obviously the video you were referring to- Mexican air show in the early 90's, formation of helicopters, balloon-looking object.

Your refusal to accept the fact that your memory of the events shown in the video is extremely flawed speaks volumes.

[aggle-rithm]

That 'you' don't value my anecdote doesn't bother me in the least. Your unwillingness to accept other people's reports about this world and the things in it, is all on you... Willful ignorance won't serve your search for truth. In fact, it will only hurt those endeavors. That said, if you are unable to believe me, get out of my thread. I have no use for you here.


Name one great discovery that was made on the basis of anecdotes alone.

Heck, you can even throw in videos and etchings if you want.

Did Columbus discover America by going to the king and queen and saying he heard a bunch of stories about it? No, he WENT there.

Did Newton formulate his theory of gravity by going around and asking people about their experiences? No, he made direct observations.

Was the Big Bang theory worked out by examining old creation stories from primitive cultures? No, a bunch of physicists got together, looked at the data, did the math, and came up with the only explanation that fit.

Anecdotes are useless. They may occassionally point us in the right direction, but it is senseless to come to any kind of conclusion based only on unverifiable stories that may or may not be true.

[Stray Cat]

First, I do not believe in 'aliens', please don't assert that I do. "E.T.'s" are fine, but I'd prefer technologically advanced non-humans.
Well if you want to call them that then that's fine by me. I'll call them what I want too... deal?

Someone who makes a living identifying, and understanding the vector and approach speeds of various aircraft, WOULD BE MORE QUALIFIED, to say what was and wasn't a U.F.O., compared to someone who's never been to an airport.
No. A UFO is an object not identified. If anything, a member of the public is more qualified to not identify something they see flying.

However, i suspect you are now referring back the the Washington case. In which I would point out that they were looking at a 1952 basic radar sweep screen and not the modern LDC high res screen they have now showing Aircraft ID tags, altitude and other such information.
They were reporting mostly non aircraft AP returns and even said so themselves. Most of the Radar operators had less than 12 months experience. Some of the solid returns were in fact identified as other commercial aircraft (all this is on those blue book reports).
If you, to date, have not seen convincing evidence, then you are ignoring the stuff that's been presented to you.

To arrive at 'they don't exist', you'd have to dismiss EVERY account from EVERY source, EVER.
The point being that to arrive at the conclusion their was just one single accurate report, you'd have to eliminate every mundane possibility because the burden of proof is on you to prove they exist.
Everytime a case is brought forward for examination, there have always been major flaws in the evidence, the way the evidence has been variously reported, the UFOlogists conclusions over reaching the evidence and mostly the UFOlogists either misrepresenting the original documentation or simply accepting it word for word without allowing for witness perception issues (and in cases such as Roswell, Iran, Trent's photos and most recently Rendlesham Forest, memory failure and blatant dishonesty from witnesses).

EVERY mention, video, photograph, and EVERY class of witness, from every corner of history.
If only one of the various unidentified objects had been later identified as an alien flying saucer (or technologically advanced non human craft), sadly every time (without fail) an object originally recorded as a UFO which has later been identified has been of mundane origin. No photo or video had ever been conclusively shown to be positively identified as an alien craft and we know that witness alone are not good enough quality evidence to reach a conclusion on.

That seems terribly ignorant, to me. That doesn't seem reasonable or logical.
I'm reasonable and logical enough to easily change my opinion as soon as reliable, verifiable evidence is presented that contradicts what I say. Are you?

[Cuddles]

First, please explain to me how "6" becoming "7" is dramatically changing my story? See I don't understand that. Saying that ONE mistake, given the whole of the story told, represents a "dramatic change" is a clear mis-representation of the truth of the matter. It is utterly FALSE to say or suggest that my story has "dramatically changed". That said, maybe I am wrong... Could you qualify what is and is not a dramatic change?

You know the really funny thing here? I never used the word "dramatically". It's almost as though you're, what's the phrase, clearly mis-representing the truth of the matter.

Second, I misnamed the collection, this particular Hope Diamond replica was a part of. The point of my story, was to demonstrate that my extreme long-term memory IS intact.

Indeed. It's so intact that you got the details wrong.

I saw my sister handle 'A' Hope Diamond. I had previously held the memory as a fiction, or dream that I had. THIS WAS NOT THE CASE. My memory was of an actual event, even if my 5-6 year old eyes were incapable of identifying a faux.

Except that, as I already noted, you have no idea if that is actually the case. You think you remember an actual event, but you have no evidence the event actually took place other than the memory you're using the event as evidence to prove its accuracy. A beautiful textbook case of circular reasoning.

What I can and can't prove on a message board is meaningless.

Well, in the greater scheme of life, the universe and everything, yes it's meaningless. In the not so great scheme of you arguing with people on message boards, what you can and can't prove on message boards is really quite relevant.

That said, if you are unable to believe me, get out of my thread. I have no use for you here.

What you have use for is meaningless. Also, it's not your thread and you have no authority to tell anyone to do anything. Although perhaps it would be worth once again pointing out this:
lets pretend
Since you are unable to actually stick to the topic of the thread, perhaps you are the one who should get out of it?

The last thing I'll say to you, is that I don't agree with how you conduct yourself, as a debater.

Of course you don't, you don't agree with anything that contradicts your religious belief in aliens. Fortunately, your agreement is not required.

You should probably stop the swearing and all caps ranting about liars though, since it's painfully obvious to everyone actually capable of reading the thread that no-one other than yourself has told any lies, and we do have rules about that sort of thing.

[dafydd]

Name one great discovery that was made on the basis of anecdotes alone.

Heck, you can even throw in videos and etchings if you want.

Did Columbus discover America by going to the king and queen and saying he heard a bunch of stories about it? No, he WENT there.

Did Newton formulate his theory of gravity by going around and asking people about their experiences? No, he made direct observations.

Was the Big Bang theory worked out by examining old creation stories from primitive cultures? No, a bunch of physicists got together, looked at the data, did the math, and came up with the only explanation that fit.

Anecdotes are useless. They may occassionally point us in the right direction, but it is senseless to come to any kind of conclusion based only on unverifiable stories that may or may not be true.

We don't make progress by telling each other stories,that's for round the campfire when you're camping. I bet Kota could tell a rattling yarn.

[Psiload]

Here's an example of anecdotal UFO report.

A witness reported the events which took place at a Mexican air show in 1993. The witness reported seeing "A silver balloon looking object." which flew between a formation of helicopters. The witness stated that one of the helicopters broke out of formation and went in pursuit of the object. The witness testified that the object increased its rate of speed and escaped pursuit.

The witness strenuously insists that his memory of the events is "reliable".

The object couldn't have been a mere balloon, because balloons can't increase their speed and outrun a helicopter. Therefore, we can reasonably and confidently conclude that the witness saw some sort of highly-advanced, ET-piloted craft.

It would be foolish and ignorant to conclude otherwise.

[carlitos]

We don't make progress by telling each other stories,that's for round the campfire when you're camping. I bet Kota could tell a rattling yarn.

Like this one about Pearl Harbor?

It JUST SO HAPPENS, that my fianee's father was one of the radar tower operators out there. HE says that they picked up on a radar signal, but that they summized that it MUST have been a radar glitch because the signal was too big to be an attack of that size.

The signal was actually interpretted as a 'large flock of birds', and thus the alarmed was not sounded, until one of these birds laid an egg.

Crazy, huh?

[King of the Americas]

You know the really funny thing here? I never used the word "dramatically". It's almost as though you're, what's the phrase, clearly mis-representing the truth of the matter.



Indeed. It's so intact that you got the details wrong.



Except that, as I already noted, you have no idea if that is actually the case. You think you remember an actual event, but you have no evidence the event actually took place other than the memory you're using the event as evidence to prove its accuracy. A beautiful textbook case of circular reasoning.


...

I'll concede that you didn't use the word "dramatically"...the word you actually used was "significantly"... Either way, please qualify that statement? Because I don't interpret a single mistake, a "6" becoming "7" as significantly changing my story.

There were no details to get wrong, in the case of my memory of my sister handling "A" Hope Diamond. I saw her handle a Hope Diamond replica, period. You can call "Kinne's Jewelry" in Gainesville Texas 940-665-3931, and ask them if they have a Hope Diamond replica on display in an upstair area. Whether or not this is proof of the story I've relayed is up to you. I'd only add, that the stone in question is 'upstairs', and I haven't seen it with my own eyes in over 2 decades, because I am in a wheelchair.

I don't think mis-stating someone else's stance is going to win any debate. And I don't think my story has changed significantly. Then again you sense a big difference between the words "dramatically" & "significantly", so maybe your whole value system is screwed up. Maybe in your head, small differences, mean BIG DIFFERENCES. I really don't know at this point how you arrive at the conclusions you do... Your thought process doesn't make sense to me.

[GeeMack]

So, what was it that I saw?


The credibility of the witness is non-existent as supported by the repeated demonstrations of lack of reliable memory and frequent lies told right here in this thread. The only thing baffling about this whole ordeal is how anyone could, in light of the proven lies and demonstrably failed memory, continue to make unsupported assertions of having seen aliens and expect anyone else to take them seriously.

[GeeMack]

First, please explain to me how "6" becoming "7" is dramatically changing my story? See I don't understand that.


Or was that a 5? Remember this, well, those of you who can remember things for more than a few hours?...


The ONLY change that has occurred were the total number of objects changed from "6" to "7".


Less than 10 hours later...

I wrote about it on message boards both the THSMB and JREF both have been erased by time itself. All that we have are my recollections here from the past several years. Wherein my discrepancies were "5" to "6", in my numbering them.


Let the record show that the witness cannot remember what he wrote 10 hours ago. Any claims to have a clear memory of anything that happened over one day ago may be summarily rejected.

[GeeMack]

I don't think mis-stating someone else's stance is going to win any debate.


Then stop accusing other people of lying when they aren't lying. On the other hand, there's absolutely no hope of you winning this debate, so carry on.

[Psiload]

Like this one about Pearl Harbor?

I remember an even better one. The King once told a tale in which he purported to recollect a bad experience he had back in grade school which was caused by his having drank too much Jolt Cola.

After asking the King how old he currently was, and doing a little research, I expressed my sympathy for the King, explaining that it must have been awkward to be a teenager and still be attending grade school.

Jolt Cola didn't exist before 1985 you see.

:D

[King of the Americas]

I remember an even better one. The King once told a tale in which he purported to recollect a bad experience he had back in grade school which was caused by his having drank too much Jolt Cola.

After asking the King how old he currently was, and doing a little research, I expressed my sympathy for the King, explaining that it must have been awkward to be a teenager and still be attending grade school.

Jolt Cola didn't exist before 1985 you see.

:D

In '85, I'd have been in the 4th or 5th grade.

What do you propose I said?

[Psiload]

You probably claimed it happened in Kindergarten, and I expressed sympathy that you had(to no one's surprise) been held back a number of times.

Hey, I'm not the one claiming his memory is accurate and reliable here.

[King of the Americas]

You probably claimed it happened in Kindergarten, and I expressed sympathy that you had(to no one's surprise) been held back a number of times.

Hey, I'm not the one claiming his memory is accurate and reliable here.

Just so we are clear, you don't know what I said or when, but you are sure I am wrong...

Got it.

[Stray Cat]

I'll concede that you didn't use the word "dramatically"...the word you actually used was "significantly"... Either way, please qualify that statement? Because I don't interpret a single mistake, a "6" becoming "7" as significantly changing my story.
The point about the use of the word "significantly" is that the altering numbers signify that your story changed, ergo it is correct usage. :)

[King of the Americas]

The point about the use of the word "significantly" is that the altering numbers signify that your story changed, ergo it is correct usage. :)

sig·nif·i·cant (sg-nf-knt)
adj.
1. Having or expressing a meaning; meaningful.
2. Having or expressing a covert meaning; suggestive: a significant glance. See Synonyms at expressive.
3. Having or likely to have a major effect; important: a significant change in the tax laws.
4. Fairly large in amount or quantity: significant casualties; no significant opposition.
5. Statistics Of or relating to observations or occurrences that are too closely correlated to be attributed to chance and therefore indicate a systematic relationship.

So you and Cuddles think changing a "6" to a "7", within the whole of a story, is a significant change...?

[King of the Americas]

We've got:

-"a moment skyward"

-reverting back to the bronze age

-flaunting our whores

-ending civilization

-stack up a big pile of rocks

-build big ass runways or pictograms

Of these, I think the only ones with any credence would be the last two, given some who made huge piles of stone and the Nazca pictograms are 'gone'.

That said, I have no rocks, nor any large sectors of land on which to doodle.

So, given all that I think the "moment skyward", is the best most doable plan.

I am however, still open to any serious suggestions, that might coax our heavenly onlookers to descend once again.

[Toke]

You forgot about setting out cups of mead*.

It is well known to attract both elves and pixies, and if we all do it, they may deem it time to show themselves to society at large.

*Add a few drops of good malt to make it irresistible for the pixies.

[King of the Americas]

You forgot about setting out cups of mead*.

It is well known to attract both elves and pixies, and if we all do it, they may deem it time to show themselves to society at large.

*Add a few drops of good malt to make it irresistible for the pixies.

I want to get U.F.O.'s to descend. Not get my Uncle Frank Orona to show up. He can hear a bottle cap open 2 counties away.

[Toke]

You are rather closed minded, dismissing elves and pixies just because there are no hard evidence of them. :D

[bruto]

We've got:

-"a moment skyward"

-reverting back to the bronze age

-flaunting our whores

-ending civilization

-stack up a big pile of rocks

-build big ass runways or pictograms

Of these, I think the only ones with any credence would be the last two, given some who made huge piles of stone and the Nazca pictograms are 'gone'.

That said, I have no rocks, nor any large sectors of land on which to doodle.

So, given all that I think the "moment skyward", is the best most doable plan.

I am however, still open to any serious suggestions, that might coax our heavenly onlookers to descend once again.

I think the big piles of stone and pictograms are a pretty poor bet anyway. They're still there, and still nothing has landed. Clearly visible and commodious modern landing strips exist throughout the world, but no UFO's have availed themselves of these either.

But whether or not the moment skyward is a good idea, you have a serious problem. If your idea that many people must do this at once in a particular location is valid, then you lack the fundamental resources to make it happen. First you must persuade people that you're not just being silly. This seems so far to have been a difficult hurdle. Viewing this thread as a test run of your persuasive skills I don't think you should be making short term plans for your event. You have a lot of work ahead of you.

[bruto]

I want to get U.F.O.'s to descend. Not get my Uncle Frank Orona to show up. He can hear a bottle cap open 2 counties away.On the other hand, I have read that some of the characters in Beowulf were based on real people. By your own standards, this makes Beowulf history. And thus, by your standards, we can say that there's historical evidence that a large assemblage of mead drinkers could result in a visitation of monsters. Maybe those monsters were another manifestation of your saucer gods. If so, a big mead drinking party is not such a bad idea. I suppose it's heartless to use Uncle Frank as bait, but we all must sacrifice a little for progress and truth.

[King of the Americas]

You are rather closed minded, dismissing elves and pixies just because there are no hard evidence of them. :D

I did no such thing...

[King of the Americas]

On the other hand, I have read that some of the characters in Beowulf were based on real people. By your own standards, this makes Beowulf history. And thus, by your standards, we can say that there's historical evidence that a large assemblage of mead drinkers could result in a visitation of monsters. Maybe those monsters were another manifestation of your saucer gods. If so, a big mead drinking party is not such a bad idea. I suppose it's heartless to use Uncle Frank as bait, but we all must sacrifice a little for progress and truth.

So, I don't think building a big drinking hall, and have people party all night works, anymore.

Have you see a movie called "The Thirteenth Warrior"?

[King of the Americas]

In the Spirit of Full Disclosure:

The father in law in question in an above posting, was NOT 'the' radar operator at Pearl Harbor. He was 'A' naval radar operator stationed in 'California'. He past away recently, and I confirmed through family that he was never stationed in Hawaii. It seems as though I have been the victim of "confabulation" too. :)

[King of the Americas]

...

But whether or not the moment skyward is a good idea, you have a serious problem. If your idea that many people must do this at once in a particular location is valid, then you lack the fundamental resources to make it happen. First you must persuade people that you're not just being silly. This seems so far to have been a difficult hurdle. Viewing this thread as a test run of your persuasive skills I don't think you should be making short term plans for your event. You have a lot of work ahead of you.

I think the ONLY thing I need to do, is get enough people to sign a petition, or otherwise contact the Olympic Committee, and suggest we insert "a moment skyward" into the Opening Ceremonies.

I can't be held responsible for other people taking me or this idea in something than a less than serious manner.

[bruto]

I think the ONLY thing I need to do, is get enough people to sign a petition, or otherwise contact the Olympic Committee, and suggest we insert "a moment skyward" into the Opening Ceremonies.

I can't be held responsible for other people taking me or this idea in something than a less than serious manner.If you want your idea to be implemented, you must take responsibility. If it has merit, it's your job to find a way to show it. Of course you can go on as you're doing, being utterly unable to convince even a single person that you're not laboring under a delusion and making an utterly absurd and silly proposal, but this will not get your idea implemented, will it? You can always say, as the delusional always do, "It's not my fault that nobody understands my brilliant ideas," but in fact it is. If you can't make a good idea clear and believable, the failing is yours. Blaming the world for not buying it is just shuck and jive.

[Psiload]

We've got:

-"a moment skyward"

-reverting back to the bronze age

-flaunting our whores

-ending civilization

-stack up a big pile of rocks

-build big ass runways or pictograms

Of these, I think the only ones with any credence would be the last two, given some who made huge piles of stone and the Nazca pictograms are 'gone'.

That said, I have no rocks, nor any large sectors of land on which to doodle.

So, given all that I think the "moment skyward", is the best most doable plan.

I am however, still open to any serious suggestions, that might coax our heavenly onlookers to descend once again.

Don't forget about our butts, the ETs are apparently fascinated by our butts. They're always pokin' and probin' 'em.

Perhaps a "backsides skywards moment" might entice them to descend.

[King of the Americas]

If you want your idea to be implemented, you must take responsibility. If it has merit, it's your job to find a way to show it. Of course you can go on as you're doing, being utterly unable to convince even a single person that you're not laboring under a delusion and making an utterly absurd and silly proposal, but this will not get your idea implemented, will it? You can always say, as the delusional always do, "It's not my fault that nobody understands my brilliant ideas," but in fact it is. If you can't make a good idea clear and believable, the failing is yours. Blaming the world for not buying it is just shuck and jive.

How can 'I' take responsibility for how skeptics refuse to even accept the possibility that there's even someone TO descend?

[dlorde]

So you and Cuddles think changing a "6" to a "7", within the whole of a story, is a significant change...?

In the context of a discussion about the reliability of the story, it certainly seems significant - and given the subsequent post suggesting it was from 5 to 6, we now have around 40% uncertainty in the number - was it 5, 6, or 7 ? For a number less than 10, this seems significantly unreliable :D

[King of the Americas]

Don't forget about our butts, the ETs are apparently fascinated by our butts. They're always pokin' and probin' 'em.

Perhaps a "backsides skywards moment" might entice them to descend.

I think I'll file that under the flaunting our whores department...

[King of the Americas]

In the context of a discussion about the reliability of the story, it certainly seems significant - and given the subsequent post suggesting it was from 5 to 6, we now have around 40% uncertainty in the number - was it 5, 6, or 7 ? For a number less than 10, this seems significantly unreliable :D

It was "6"...

It was six.

It was VI.

It was 3+3.

It was 1+1+1+1+1+1

"6"

It was "6".

[RoboTimbo]

It was "6"...

It was six.

It was VI.

It was 3+3.

It was 1+1+1+1+1+1

"6"

It was "6".

Except when it was 5 and 7.

[King of the Americas]

Except when it was 5 and 7.

It was never 5 or 7, I made a mistake then.

[Toke]

Don't forget about our butts, the ETs are apparently fascinated by our butts. They're always pokin' and probin' 'em.

Perhaps a "backsides skywards moment" might entice them to descend.

I wonder how the Olympic committee would like that idea?
It would at least be an unusual event in opening ceremonies, and likely to grab attention somewhere.

(I doubt if the message sent would be agreed to by all. "We welcome the probes of our elvish overlords")

[Jono74]

Hi KoTA. Just been watching the recent part of this thread, and its come to touch on something I've been wanting to talk about, but the "reasearch evidence" thread is not really suitable, imo. It just seems to be lots of yelling, and mayble slightly exclusive.
Its the anecdote part Im interested in (of solid type, or whatever, ufos). Im not of the Rramjet ilk, but I DO believe some of these reports(firsthand, uneditorialised, opinion free). Not spacemen ones, not abduction ones etc. Im a bit biased.
There is utterly no evidence, not what I'd call evidence anyway, and I reckon it all comes down believing, or not, a few unusual observations by some very reliable people. Some people lie, some are mistaken, some have no explanation. I personally like to keep them as ufo's - cool solid flying things, not identify them as spaceships or whatever - I reckon thats a bit of a leap.
I also observe here that the most reliable type sightings go ignored. And its (I feel) dissapointing to see some of the explanations offered by some. Though in fairness, more info needed is always pertinent.
Anyway, it comes down to just believing someone, unless you see something yourself, and I do believe some of these people. (Qualify; ufos are my pet topic ) :)

[tsig]

It was never 5 or 7, I made a mistake then.

Or you're making a mistake now. How can you tell?

[King of the Americas]

Hi KoTA. Just been watching the recent part of this thread, and its come to touch on something I've been wanting to talk about, but the "reasearch evidence" thread is not really suitable, imo. It just seems to be lots of yelling, and mayble slightly exclusive.
Its the anecdote part Im interested in (of solid type, or whatever, ufos). Im not of the Rramjet ilk, but I DO believe some of these reports(firsthand, uneditorialised, opinion free). Not spacemen ones, not abduction ones etc. Im a bit biased.
There is utterly no evidence, not what I'd call evidence anyway, and I reckon it all comes down believing, or not, a few unusual observations by some very reliable people. Some people lie, some are mistaken, some have no explanation. I personally like to keep them as ufo's - cool solid flying things, not identify them as spaceships or whatever - I reckon thats a bit of a leap.
I also observe here that the most reliable type sightings go ignored. And its (I feel) dissapointing to see some of the explanations offered by some. Though in fairness, more info needed is always pertinent.
Anyway, it comes down to just believing someone, unless you see something yourself, and I do believe some of these people. (Qualify; ufos are my pet topic ) :)

Thank you for your retort.

Skeptics fight the fights they can win...

Personally, I don't like labeling 'them' either, which is why I go with not-so-descript: "technologically advanced non-humans that dwell in our heavens".

[Jono74]

You're welcome :)

I dont agree with all your points, but definitely some.
I'd really like a good discussion, just not one that gets really nasty, which seems all too common. Easy to say, harder not to get drawn into though...
Im wary of being accused of trolling also.
I may have chosen the wrong thread also, as "something descending" type thing is something I've thought about not at all, since I was young, anyway.

[King of the Americas]

You're welcome :)

I dont agree with all your points, but definitely some.
I'd really like a good discussion, just not one that gets really nasty, which seems all too common. Easy to say, harder not to get drawn into though...
Im wary of being accused of trolling also.
I may have chosen the wrong thread also, as "something descending" type thing is something I've thought about not at all, since I was young, anyway.

Well, this thread was intended to discuss manners of getting 'them' to descend, but as you can tell it has covered other aspects of their existence.

Which of my points do you find disagreement with?

[Jono74]

OK - I havent read the entire thread, so sorry in advance if I recover points etc. (Hey - its huge, and didnt really appeal to me, but I keep an eye on recent posts, and did the OP and first few pages.)
I disagree with what I perceive as the assumption that there is a "they, that has descended before". But I honestly dont know if you believe that, or are just arguing from there. Not to worry.
I think of the natives/explorers analogy. Natives find a log washed up that looks a bit like one of their canoes, but clearly not one of theirs. They assume its from the god people, and set about trying to get them to come to their islands. At this point, they dont even know for sure the god people exist or not. They pray, sacrifice, hold games, look at chicken entrails, sacrifice virgins etc. Clearly they are not having any luck.
One day a ships show up on the horizon, and not due to the natives' efforts. They natives had better hope that those ship people are friendly and have better ethics and value systems than perhaps their own.
Thats how I see it I guess.
Im more interested in strange things seen by reliable people.

[carlitos]

Jono74, I think that this is what you mean with the canoe thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

[bruto]

How can 'I' take responsibility for how skeptics refuse to even accept the possibility that there's even someone TO descend? Refusing to accept responsibility for your failure to convince is a rather common event in the unraveling of crackpots. Flat earthers and time-cubists and other possessors of perpetual motion, the secrets of the universe or the alphabet of the corn gods end up standing alone on their respective dungheaps cursing the blind and stupid for failing to get it.

Of course you might well be the only one in the world who holds the truth. Poor you if that's so. Quixotism has a certain romantic air, but more to the don than to those who get the joke. The fact remains that if you can't convince anyone of your viewpoint, you'll never get anywhere beyond where you are now. You can blame that failure on anyone or anything you want, but in the end it's yours to own.

[dafydd]

How can 'I' take responsibility for how skeptics refuse to even accept the possibility that there's even someone TO descend?

No hard evidence.

[dlorde]

It was "6"...

It was six.

It was VI.

It was 3+3.

It was 1+1+1+1+1+1

"6"

It was "6".

Are you sure?

[dlorde]

...
There is utterly no evidence, not what I'd call evidence anyway, and I reckon it all comes down believing, or not, a few unusual observations by some very reliable people. Some people lie, some are mistaken, some have no explanation. I personally like to keep them as ufo's - cool solid flying things, not identify them as spaceships or whatever - I reckon thats a bit of a leap.
If there is 'utterly no evidence' that you'd call evidence, then what is there to believe?

I also observe here that the most reliable type sightings go ignored.Such as?

Anyway, it comes down to just believing someone, unless you see something yourself, and I do believe some of these people.
Without evidence, this just sounds like wishful thinking - what, exactly, do you believe, and why?

[EHocking]

Are you sure?well, as sure as his father-in-law was at Pearl Harbour....

[King of the Americas]

well, as sure as his father-in-law was at Pearl Harbour....

That's what the man told me.

And given the nature of our relationship I was in no position to question him.

[King of the Americas]

OK - I havent read the entire thread, so sorry in advance if I recover points etc. (Hey - its huge, and didnt really appeal to me, but I keep an eye on recent posts, and did the OP and first few pages.)
I disagree with what I perceive as the assumption that there is a "they, that has descended before". But I honestly dont know if you believe that, or are just arguing from there. Not to worry.
I think of the natives/explorers analogy. Natives find a log washed up that looks a bit like one of their canoes, but clearly not one of theirs. They assume its from the god people, and set about trying to get them to come to their islands. At this point, they dont even know for sure the god people exist or not. They pray, sacrifice, hold games, look at chicken entrails, sacrifice virgins etc. Clearly they are not having any luck.
One day a ships show up on the horizon, and not due to the natives' efforts. They natives had better hope that those ship people are friendly and have better ethics and value systems than perhaps their own.
Thats how I see it I guess.
Im more interested in strange things seen by reliable people.

I make no 'assumption' that they were once here... That's the conclusion I reached, after looking around, and seeing sights like Puma Punku that contain evidence of an advanced technology at work, that is now absent.

There was someone here, in our ancient past, that had techniques of working stone that surpass even today's modern stone masonry tools.

The objects I saw, while they weren't making stone carving look easy, performed feats beyond the ability of our most advanced fighters.

I find evidence that they existed here, in the past, but now they exist in our heavens.

[King of the Americas]

Refusing to accept responsibility for your failure to convince is a rather common event in the unraveling of crackpots. Flat earthers and time-cubists and other possessors of perpetual motion, the secrets of the universe or the alphabet of the corn gods end up standing alone on their respective dungheaps cursing the blind and stupid for failing to get it.

Of course you might well be the only one in the world who holds the truth. Poor you if that's so. Quixotism has a certain romantic air, but more to the don than to those who get the joke. The fact remains that if you can't convince anyone of your viewpoint, you'll never get anywhere beyond where you are now. You can blame that failure on anyone or anything you want, but in the end it's yours to own.

I am not responsible for your willful ignorance.

[King of the Americas]

No hard evidence.

How is it my fault, that your standard of evidence excludes EVERY piece of data presented to you?

[Jono74]

Jono74, I think that this is what you mean with the canoe thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

Yeah - I'm well aware of them. Fascinating insight they provide as to how religions start too!
Thanks for the link, btw. Skeptoid does a really good overview too.

[Jono74]

If there is 'utterly no evidence' that you'd call evidence, then what is there to believe?

Hope this works. Well, as I said above, I believe, for me anyway, that the real issue is whether or not to believe observations made by reliable people. As I said, I do believe some, at face value. I would certainly not call that evidence, and I really dont want to get into the evidence debate. I dont reckon there is any. I wouldnt call radar contact or even photographic as evidence. Many differ there. What I find difficult to discount are unusual observations by reliable, sober people.

Such as?

Well, I think you have me there. I have seen a lot of editorialised and massaged stuff on the other thread. I only take notice of first hand accounts, and not woo tube or ufo/et/blah blah site stuff. I could maybe post a link for peoples opinion...?

Without evidence, this just sounds like wishful thinking - what, exactly, do you believe, and why?

Quite correct. As I said earlier and to qualify, ufo's are my pet woo. I DO like the mystery. And I do believe some people accounts, and that they are accurate, and objective. Very few though.
And one can rightly say - well, what about reliable pixie accounts? Reliable ghost ones, etc? Double standard...? yeah. It seems to me military/police/pilot etc type people report aerial phenomena way more than for eg ghosty type things.
Contemporary equivalent of religious visions, pixies etc, triggered by scifi movies, books?
I dunno, but I hope to learn or add somehow to my views/beliefs here.

[King of the Americas]

Yeah - I'm well aware of them. Fascinating insight they provide as to how religions start too!
Thanks for the link, btw. Skeptoid does a really good overview too.

And yesterday's gods dropped manta from heaven...

That said, another thought just occurred to me, what if they arrived UNINVITED...?

I mean that would make them a pretty rude guests don't you think?

What if they've just been waiting on our front stoop, for us to open the door.

I think we'd better find someway of inviting them down, before they come through an unopened door...

[Jono74]

dlorde - obviously, I have a bit to learn about the quote feature. Was trying to multiquote :confused:

ETA: KoTA; will reply soon as I get home from work.

[bruto]

I am not responsible for your willful ignorance. Everyone but you is responsible for your failure. Go on thinking that if it brings you happiness, but the one thing it will not bring is success.

[King of the Americas]

Everyone but you is responsible for your failure. Go on thinking that if it brings you happiness, but the one thing it will not bring is success.

I've reached my finding, after MY review of the evidence presented here and in other threads, that 'they exist in our heavens'.

It is NOT my failure that you ignore, dismiss, or fail to appreciate EVERY piece of evidence presented to you...

Ignorance, especially willful, makes me sad.

[Jono74]

I've reached my finding, after MY review of the evidence presented here and in other threads, that 'they exist in our heavens'.

It is NOT my failure that you ignore, dismiss, or fail to appreciate EVERY piece of evidence presented to you...

Ignorance, especially willful, makes me sad.

I hate to keep referring to Skeptoid, but Brian did a pretty good episode on Pumapunku. Have you listened to/read it? Very interesting. No doubt you have a deeper knowledge, and I dont mean that in a sarcastic way. He presented facts, refs, and the observation that the larger stones have been consistantly exaggerated in size and hardness.

People back then were not just dumber versions of ourselves. They just lived under different circumstances, and had skills that are no longer needed today. And spare time we havent got today either. Many stellae(? those big tall post things) are still sitting in egypt, half carved out of rock, and abandoned due to cracks and weaknesses. No mystery. Just time and hard work.

There is a great youtube vid of a guy who is building a full sized stonehenge using nothing but himself, wood, and stones. It sounds unbelievable, but looks so simple when he shows how its done.
Other users can probably post a link - I've forgotten where.

ETA:No I havent! Its here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK1Rzch89Dw

[King of the Americas]

I hate to keep referring to Skeptoid, but Brian did a pretty good episode on Pumapunku. Have you listened to/read it? Very interesting. No doubt you have a deeper knowledge, and I dont mean that in a sarcastic way. He presented facts, refs, and the observation that the larger stones have been consistantly exaggerated in size and hardness.

People back then were not just dumber versions of ourselves. They just lived under different circumstances, and had skills that are no longer needed today. And spare time we havent got today either. Many stellae(? those big tall post things) are still sitting in egypt, half carved out of rock, and abandoned due to cracks and weaknesses. No mystery. Just time and hard work.

There is a great youtube vid of a guy who is building a full sized stonehenge using nothing but himself, wood, and stones. It sounds unbelievable, but looks so simple when he shows how its done.
Other users can probably post a link - I've forgotten where.

See this stone (http://www.lugaluda.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/puma-punku.jpeg).

The walls of an ancient building were made of hundreds of these that interlocked.

This is a blueprint version of the stone, that you'd require to reproduce these (http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4003/4526966166_0fbefbb9ca_z.jpg).

I spent several months last year carving 9 symbols onto a piece of granite, with a carbide tipped chisel and diamond tipped drumel tools. It took me months to achieve a mere 1/4 of an inch deep. Granted I am only an amateur stone worker, I have access to materials MUCH harder than copper and bronze alloys.

I would argue that those cuts represent the work of an advanced technology, now lost, gone, and or unknown.

Moreover, I would argue that such works would be IMPOSSIBLE without a written language, precise measuring tools, and better stone removal techniques than we now have today.

These stones are diorite, similar to granite in hardness.

It would be impossible to mass produce these stones with bronze or copper chisels.

---

Do you have a link to this skeptiod video?

I have seen videos of people using two fulcrums and a counterweight to move massive stones. I've seen a video of a man moving a rectangular pillar that weighed several hundred pounds, with one hand...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK1Rzch89Dw&feature=related

Carving inner square corners into hard stone, on the other hand, is a different task altogether.

[Jono74]

See this stone (http://www.lugaluda.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/puma-punku.jpeg).

The walls of an ancient building were made of hundreds of these that interlocked.

This is a blueprint version of the stone, that you'd require to reproduce these (http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4003/4526966166_0fbefbb9ca_z.jpg).

I spent several months last year carving 9 symbols onto a piece of granite, with a carbide tipped chisel and diamond tipped drumel tools. It took me months to achieve a mere 1/4 of an inch deep. Granted I am only an amateur stone worker, I have access to materials MUCH harder than copper and bronze alloys.

I would argue that those cuts represent the work of an advanced technology, now lost, gone, and or unknown.

Moreover, I would argue that such works would be IMPOSSIBLE without a written language, precise measuring tools, and better stone removal techniques than we now have today.

These stones are diorite, similar to granite in hardness.

It would be impossible to mass produce these stones with bronze or copper chisels.

---

Do you have a link to this skeptiod video?

I have seen videos of people using two fulcrums and a counterweight to move massive stones. I've seen a video of a man moving a rectangular pillar that weighed several hundred pounds, with one hand...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK1Rzch89Dw&feature=related

Carving inner square corners into hard stone, on the other hand, is a different task altogether.

Yes - I added the link an above edit. Looks like same one as you - Wally Wallington is the mans name. This vid is all I know of him. I ASSUME its true - ie stone not polystyrene - pretty lazy eh?


The following is a quote from the Skeptoid Podcast about it, which is also referenced, and can be found here: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4202


"Petrographic and chemical analyses are relatively trivial to carry out, and even allowed us to determine exactly where the rocks were quarried. Pumapunku's large blocks are a common red sandstone that was quarried about 10 kilometers away. Many of the smaller stones, including the most ornamental and some of the facing stones, are of igneous andesite and came from a quarry on the shore of Lake Titicaca, about 90 kilometers away."

"The Tiwanaku did magnificent work, but by no means was it inexplicably superior to what can be found throughout the ancient world. It is unnecessary to invoke aliens to explain the structures."


Sounds like a hell of a task you have set yourself with the carving. Good stuff. The podcast is well worth a read/listen, if you havent already.
Thanks for the link KotA, promise I'll look, but I'm extremely skeptical of anything other than people and hard work being responsible.

[EHocking]

That's what the man told me.

And given the nature of our relationship I was in no position to question him.This is the root of the problem.

You have a tendency to accept things told to you or read by you at face value with little critical analysis, and then argue the point here as though the story you've heard or read is "true fact".

You then accuse anyone who disagrees with your "facts" as being ignorant.

[Psiload]

And yesterday's gods dropped manta from heaven...

***snip***



Priceless.

[dlorde]

People back then were not just dumber versions of ourselves.
Not sure if you meant that the way it sounds, but people back then were no less intelligent than us.

[dlorde]

Yes - I added the link an above edit. Looks like same one as you - Wally Wallington is the mans name. This vid is all I know of him. I ASSUME its true - ie stone not polystyrene - pretty lazy eh?
Wally has a web site (http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/) and you can order a DVD of his techniques (it's pretty amateurishly produced, but fascinating). It's real enough, and shows that one carpenter in a few decades can devise techniques to move large structures and monoliths around without pulleys, etc. It's not surprising that early civilizations could do as well, or better, given hundreds of years of practical experience and expertise.

I'm extremely skeptical of anything other than people and hard work being responsible.
Me too. Red sandstone is relatively soft and andesite is tough but not impossible to work.

[dafydd]

How is it my fault, that your standard of evidence excludes EVERY piece of data presented to you?

Your stories are not data. And I am not disposed to believe some one who thinks that manta drops from heaven. Is that what killed Steve Irwin?

[King of the Americas]

Your stories are not data. And I am not disposed to believe some one who thinks that manta drops from heaven. Is that what killed Steve Irwin?

Yup.

"Manna" from heaven stuck him in his chest...

EVERYTHING is data. Some is good data, some is bad, or otherwise inaccurate data.

Your stance demands that your exclude every piece of 'data' from every source...regardless of their knowledge, experience, or background.

[King of the Americas]

Priceless.

That came from the fiance... I thought it was 'mana'.

[King of the Americas]

This is the root of the problem.

You have a tendency to accept things told to you or read by you at face value with little critical analysis, and then argue the point here as though the story you've heard or read is "true fact".

You then accuse anyone who disagrees with your "facts" as being ignorant.

I tend to 'first' go with what I'm told.

But I have no problem researching for a truth of the matter.

[dafydd]

deleted

[dafydd]

Yup.

"Manna" from heaven stuck him in his chest...

EVERYTHING is data. Some is good data, some is bad, or otherwise inaccurate data.

Your stance demands that your exclude every piece of 'data' from every source...regardless of their knowledge, experience, or background.

I have a tribe of leprechauns in my garden. I never see them,only traces of their activity. Do you believe that they are there?

[dafydd]

The came from the fiance... I thought it was 'mana'.

So you've never read the bible.

[King of the Americas]

Yes - I added the link an above edit. Looks like same one as you - Wally Wallington is the mans name. This vid is all I know of him. I ASSUME its true - ie stone not polystyrene - pretty lazy eh?


The following is a quote from the Skeptoid Podcast about it, which is also referenced, and can be found here: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4202



Sounds like a hell of a task you have set yourself with the carving. Good stuff. The podcast is well worth a read/listen, if you havent already.
Thanks for the link KotA, promise I'll look, but I'm extremely skeptical of anything other than people and hard work being responsible.

I think that link was posted much earlier.

My plank still stands. They didn't address the evidence I've presented, or others like this: http://api.ning.com/files/gX3HeYgD8bhGAKrMHhcd*KR3Dm80HTF4cW9PlG40oLAHTxYZjO AJbA020jduSCodRI3gBGyXJBDlIfeLb156jEa3ZvcgVXA5/PumaPunku011Small.jpg

This cut wasn't made with a stone hammer and chisel. There would literally be no need to cut a square line in a stone. The ONLY tools we have found are copper and bronze alloys.

I use a carbide tipped chisel and diamond tipped bits.

What I find, is that there was an "advanced technology, now lost, at work there".

[King of the Americas]

...


Me too. Red sandstone is relatively soft and andesite is tough but not impossible to work.

Cutting descending square corners into andesite with copper and bronze alloys is not possible...

Some other process was at work there.

[GeeMack]

And yesterday's gods dropped manta from heaven...

That said, another thought just occurred to me, what if they arrived UNINVITED...?

I mean that would make them a pretty rude guests don't you think?

What if they've just been waiting on our front stoop, for us to open the door.

I think we'd better find someway of inviting them down, before they come through an unopened door...


Waiting for an invitation? According to some nuts, they've been dropping in to visit for centuries.

[GeeMack]

I think that link was posted much earlier.

My plank still stands. They didn't address the evidence I've presented, or others like this: http://api.ning.com/files/gX3HeYgD8bhGAKrMHhcd*KR3Dm80HTF4cW9PlG40oLAHTxYZjO AJbA020jduSCodRI3gBGyXJBDlIfeLb156jEa3ZvcgVXA5/PumaPunku011Small.jpg

This cut wasn't made with a stone hammer and chisel. There would literally be no need to cut a square line in a stone. The ONLY tools we have found are copper and bronze alloys.

I use a carbide tipped chisel and diamond tipped bits.

What I find, is that there was an "advanced technology, now lost, at work there".


Your lack of qualification to speak with any authority on the issue of stone carving has been unequivocally demonstrated several times earlier in this thread.

[GeeMack]

I tend to 'first' go with what I'm told.


You've been told that ignorance and incredulity do not constitute valid evidence for the existence of aliens. Go with that.

[King of the Americas]

Not sure if you meant that the way it sounds, but people back then were no less intelligent than us.

Are you smarter than your Dad?

Are we smarter than slave holders?

Are we smarter than Homo Sapiens?

I'd like to think that we stand on the shoulders of giants, that our ancestors knowledge and intelligence is our to 'grow' upon.

Aren't we evolving into something 'better' each day?

Or do you propose we have always been the same STUCK in this stage?

[GeeMack]

Are we smarter than Homo Sapiens?


We are Homo sapiens.

Now where was that thread about mocking ridiculous arguments? :rolleyes:

[King of the Americas]

Your lack of qualification to speak with any authority on the issue of stone carving has been unequivocally demonstrated several times earlier in this thread.

"MY" lack of authority...?

You MUST be kidding... I am the ONLY one here with any experience putting chisel to granite.

See, THIS is why you are on my ignore list.

:rolleyes:

[King of the Americas]

I have a tribe of leprechauns in my garden. I never see them,only traces of their activity. Do you believe that they are there?

Sure, if you'll concede the term "leprechauns" is flexible.

[King of the Americas]

So you've never read the bible.

In my head, I remembered "mana"...

I haven't read the whole bible, no.

I was raised Catholic.

[GeeMack]

Aren't we evolving into something 'better' each day?


We are evolving into something which can more successfully reproduce every time one of our offspring has a child which successfully reproduces... etc... etc. To learn more about evolution and possibly improve your understanding of the issue, go to Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/).

[GeeMack]

"MY" lack of authority...?

You MUST be kidding... I am the ONLY one here with any experience putting chisel to granite.

See, THIS is why you are on my ignore list.


I have much experience working with various stone materials including granite, so your argument is another lie. I mentioned it earlier in the thread. Oddly it seems you're ignoring the people who actually know this stuff and could best help you understand your lack of qualification. That's why yours is an argument from ignorance.

[King of the Americas]

I have much experience working with various stone materials including granite, so your argument is another lie. I mentioned it earlier in the thread. Oddly it seems you're ignoring the people who actually know this stuff and could best help you understand your lack of qualification. That's why yours is an argument from ignorance.

Admittedly, you've been on my ignore list, so I really haven't seen anything you've posted.

I honestly did not know you have worked with stone.

So tell me, how much granite can you move in an hour, and what techniques to you employ?

[bruto]

Are you smarter than your Dad?

Are we smarter than slave holders?

Are we smarter than Homo Sapiens?

I'd like to think that we stand on the shoulders of giants, that our ancestors knowledge and intelligence is our to 'grow' upon.

Aren't we evolving into something 'better' each day?

Or do you propose we have always been the same STUCK in this stage?One thing that certainly hasn't evolved is your understanding. Rather the reverse.

[dafydd]

Are you smarter than your Dad?

Are we smarter than slave holders?

Are we smarter than Homo Sapiens?

I'd like to think that we stand on the shoulders of giants, that our ancestors knowledge and intelligence is our to 'grow' upon.

Aren't we evolving into something 'better' each day?

Or do you propose we have always been the same STUCK in this stage?

We are Homo Sapiens. Another priceless one.

[dafydd]

In my head, I remembered "mana"...

I haven't read the whole bible, no.

I was raised Catholic.

Catholics don't read the bible?

[King of the Americas]

We are Homo Sapiens. Another priceless one.

I thought 'we' were Homo Sapien Sapien...?

[King of the Americas]

Catholics don't read the bible?

No, not really. We were told the stories of the bible, and we studied the gospels. But there were no real "bible studies" in CCD classes.

[Femke]

I thought 'we' were Homo Sapien Sapien...?

Homo sapiens is the whole of the modern human species. Homo sapiens sapiens refers to subspecies sapiens, that is included in H. sapiens. As far as I know it is the only subspecies alive today.
So you may refer to modern humans as H. sapiens and as H. sapiens sapiens, since both taxa overlap nowadays.

[bruto]

Catholics don't read the bible?As KotA observes, not really. My wife was brought up Catholic, and her religious education was not only woefully deficient in Bible knowledge, but in actual understanding of the Church's own doctrines. She was taught the rules and rituals, but little or nothing of what stood behind them.

[bruto]

King, you often berate us for our "willful ignorance," but you would do your own credibility a favor if you paid more attention to your own. You could start by learning the difference:

between sandstone and granite;

between a fallacy and a mistake;

between evolution and learning.

There are a few others I could come up with, but we mustn't pile things on too quickly. Next month, perhaps, hawk and handsaw.

[Aepervius]

Admittedly, you've been on my ignore list, so I really haven't seen anything you've posted.

I honestly did not know you have worked with stone.

So tell me, how much granite can you move in an hour, and what techniques to you employ?

Maybe that's ll help.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3284/is_287_75/ai_n28829909/

And yes, granite was also prepared with copper / bronze tools, but production was much easier with steel, and now aday diamond tipped/ abbrasive saw and tools. But it can be done, and it has been done. And roman cut marble.

I sadly can't speak from experience, I only cut relatively easy to cut stone (chalk analogue), but in big blocks.

[Aepervius]

Catholics don't read the bible?

Anecdote time : I actually asked, colleagues and friends and family.

From those, no young (*) catholic ever read the bible from start to end. Some passage for mass, yes, some passage for some occasion, yes, but never the fullness of OT+NT. Only 1 old catholic (80) read it fully a long time ago.

That is not the province of catholic only, the young protestan I asked in germany answered the same.

Bible reading is mostly seen as not "important" (not my answer).

I would be my shirt it is a general trend in the modern western society.

(*) age lower than 55 and above ~25. I know of nobody below 25.

[Aepervius]

As KotA observes, not really. My wife was brought up Catholic, and her religious education was not only woefully deficient in Bible knowledge, but in actual understanding of the Church's own doctrines. She was taught the rules and rituals, but little or nothing of what stood behind them.

Anecdotial case in point, transubstantitation. All caths I asked thought that what you put in your mouth , and swallow was bread, and the "body of the christ" ritual were just symbolic.

[dafydd]

As KotA observes, not really. My wife was brought up Catholic, and her religious education was not only woefully deficient in Bible knowledge, but in actual understanding of the Church's own doctrines. She was taught the rules and rituals, but little or nothing of what stood behind them.

There is an old Flemish saw about the agreement between the priest and the mayor.
"You keep them poor and I'll keep them stupid."

[King of the Americas]

Homo sapiens is the whole of the modern human species. Homo sapiens sapiens refers to subspecies sapiens, that is included in H. sapiens. As far as I know it is the only subspecies alive today.
So you may refer to modern humans as H. sapiens and as H. sapiens sapiens, since both taxa overlap nowadays.

Thank you for the clarification.

[King of the Americas]

As KotA observes, not really. My wife was brought up Catholic, and her religious education was not only woefully deficient in Bible knowledge, but in actual understanding of the Church's own doctrines. She was taught the rules and rituals, but little or nothing of what stood behind them.

That was certainly my finding, as well.

[King of the Americas]

Anecdotial case in point, transubstantitation. All caths I asked thought that what you put in your mouth , and swallow was bread, and the "body of the christ" ritual were just symbolic.

I always told them that Yeshua was actually saying, "Eat and drink wine together, and remember me when you do."

Ritualistic cannibalism is weird.

[bruto]

Anecdotial case in point, transubstantitation. All caths I asked thought that what you put in your mouth , and swallow was bread, and the "body of the christ" ritual were just symbolic.That's the very example I thought of. I mentioned this to my wife some years ago and she had no real idea of what transubstantiation was, nor was she aware that the RC church's idea of communion was so substantially different from others'.

edit to add: this even though one of her best stories of Catholic childhood trauma involves the fact that she vomited her first communion, and the huge guilt trip and rigmarole that were involved when one pukes the body of christ.

[King of the Americas]

So why wouldn't the Olympic Opening Ceremonies be a good idea?

Historically speaking, weren't the original Olympics for the entertainment of the gods?

Would there be a more appropriate venue?

[Sean84]

So why wouldn't the Olympic Opening Ceremonies be a good idea?
Because it's a remarkably stupid idea to begin with. The venue is irrelevant. Read the thread rather than circle back again.

Historically speaking, weren't the original Olympics for the entertainment of the gods?
Irrelevant. Your wacky alien religion has no basis in reality.

Would there be a more appropriate venue?
Yes. Your backyard. Go. Look up. Have fun.

[King of the Americas]

Because it's a remarkably stupid idea to begin with. The venue is irrelevant. Read the thread rather than circle back again.


Irrelevant. Your wacky alien religion has no basis in reality.


Yes. Your backyard. Go. Look up. Have fun.

:)

Ignorance is a remarkably stupid idea, in my opinion.

[bruto]

So why wouldn't the Olympic Opening Ceremonies be a good idea?

Historically speaking, weren't the original Olympics for the entertainment of the gods?

Would there be a more appropriate venue?A moment skyward at the Olympic opening ceremonies would be about as good an idea as telling everyone to strap on gossamer wings, fly to the moon, and invite the gods over to snack on the cheese. One is physically possible, the other not, but they are pragmatically equal, since neither will ever happen. If you cannot persuade anyone that your ideas make sense, then you are far far ahead of yourself planning how vast numbers of strangers will perform a task for you.

When I was little, I enjoyed If I Ran the Zoo, but I didn't waste my time designing cages. Time to grow up.

[King of the Americas]

A moment skyward at the Olympic opening ceremonies would be about as good an idea as telling everyone to strap on gossamer wings, fly to the moon, and invite the gods over to snack on the cheese. One is physically possible, the other not, but they are pragmatically equal, since neither will ever happen. If you cannot persuade anyone that your ideas make sense, then you are far far ahead of yourself planning how vast numbers of strangers will perform a task for you.

When I was little, I enjoyed If I Ran the Zoo, but I didn't waste my time designing cages. Time to grow up.

The petition counter is stuck at 35...

[King of the Americas]

So, Cuddles. Did you call that jewelry store to confirm my anecdote about seeing a faux Hope Diamond, there?

And why have you failed to quantify "significantly", yet...?

[aggle-rithm]

It was never 5 or 7, I made a mistake then.

You didn't actually say six, you said "no more than six".

This is a subtle yet significant difference. If you had said "six" then later said "seven", then we could say, "Six, seven, what's the difference?"

But if you say no more than six, then you are implying a different level of certainty. This means definitely not seven. You were sure of it.

But then, later, you said seven.

This demonstrates that certainty in belief does not equal fact. No matter how right you think you are, you can still be wrong.

[Psiload]

So why wouldn't the Olympic Opening Ceremonies be a good idea?

Historically speaking, weren't the original Olympics for the entertainment of the gods?

Would there be a more appropriate venue?

There's your biggest problem right there. Good luck trying to get the vastly monotheistic world to join in your little polytheistic reindeer game.

You think you're having difficulty trying to convince we atheistic/agnostic/skeptical types of the existence of your ET gods? Wait'll you try and sell the notion of "the gods" to the vastly monotheistically religious world at large.

Gooooood luck with that.

The JREF will seem like a pack of sweethearts in comparison to how well your idea will fly with some of the more devout and fundamental religious groups out there.

[King of the Americas]

You didn't actually say six, you said "no more than six".

This is a subtle yet significant difference. If you had said "six" then later said "seven", then we could say, "Six, seven, what's the difference?"

But if you say no more than six, then you are implying a different level of certainty. This means definitely not seven. You were sure of it.

But then, later, you said seven.

This demonstrates that certainty in belief does not equal fact. No matter how right you think you are, you can still be wrong.

There were "6" star-like objects, and the ONE semetrical cloud they emerged from.

The thing that I find disagreement with, is that if a singular mistake, or god forbid a typo occurs then you and other think it is okay to toss the whole account...

Given, it is 'common' for people to misremember, make mistakes in recollection, or otherwise be incorrect about about an event or sighting, you are safe from ANY report...simply because no one has a 100% perfect memory.

And this is where your Willful Ignorance takes over.

No one is perfect, so NO REPORTS can be accepted as containing any truth.

I relayed another anecdote about a fake diamond I saw as a child. Have you made the phone call that would confirm or deny this story?

[King of the Americas]

There's your biggest problem right there. Good luck trying to get the vastly monotheistic world to join in your little polytheistic reindeer game.

You think you're having difficulty trying to convince we atheistic/agnostic/skeptical types of the existence of your ET gods? Wait'll you try and sell the notion of "the gods" to the vastly monotheistically religious world at large.

Gooooood luck with that.

The JREF will seem like a pack of sweethearts in comparison to how well your idea will fly with some of the more devout and fundamental religious groups out there.

See, I think that believers would flock to the notion of welcoming "the gods" back, if only to prove that they were at least partially correct.

Skeptics are the toughest road to clear, because they have no desire to believe or accept even a singular report of such an existence.

[EHocking]

See, I think that believers would flock to the notion of welcoming "the gods" back, if only to prove that they were at least partially correct.What part of monotheistic did you not understand in Psiload's post?

[Psiload]

See, I think that believers would flock to the notion of welcoming "the gods" back, if only to prove that they were at least partially correct.

If you think your average fundy Christians or devout Muslims would "flock" to a UFO-gods-invitation-ceremony in the hopes of proving their religious faith "partially correct", then you just don't understand the mind of the true believer AT ALL.

You'd have better luck getting them to attend a Satan-conjuring-ceremony. At least he's a character familiar to their doctrines.

[dafydd]

:)

Ignorance is a remarkably stupid idea, in my opinion.

Why do you embrace it?

[dafydd]

If you think your average fundy Christians or devout Muslims would "flock" to a UFO-gods-invitation-ceremony in the hopes of proving their religious faith "partially correct", then you just don't understand the mind of the true believer AT ALL.

You'd have better luck getting them to attend a Satan-conjuring-ceremony. At least he's a character familiar to their doctrines.

If believers of all religions were present,how would the right god know how to come down?

[dafydd]

What part of monotheistic did you not understand in Psiload's post?

All of it.

[King of the Americas]

If you think your average fundy Christians or devout Muslims would "flock" to a UFO-gods-invitation-ceremony in the hopes of proving their religious faith "partially correct", then you just don't understand the mind of the true believer AT ALL.

You'd have better luck getting them to attend a Satan-conjuring-ceremony. At least he's a character familiar to their doctrines.

It's all about "labels" isn't it...

My petition doesn't mention term "U.F.O.", "Aliens", or "Outer Space".

The actual wording is:

To the Olympic Committee:

"We, the undersigned, do hereby request that 'a moment skyward' be added to the Opening Ceremonies of the London 2012 Olympics, as an open invitation to the 'god(s) of the heavens'- witnessed by so many throughout the ages, to descend once again."

---

If that isn't all inclusive, I don't know what is.

god(s) of the heavens...

Haven't ALL religions said basically that?

[dafydd]

I am not a sports fan,but I am looking forward to the Olympics just to see Kota with egg on his face.

[dafydd]

It's all about "labels" isn't it...

My petition doesn't mention term "U.F.O.", "Aliens", or "Outer Space".

The actual wording is:

To the Olympic Committee:

"We, the undersigned, do hereby request that 'a moment skyward' be added to the Opening Ceremonies of the London 2012 Olympics, as an open invitation to the 'god(s) of the heavens'- witnessed by so many throughout the ages, to descend once again."

---

If that isn't all inclusive, I don't know what is.

god(s) of the heavens...

Haven't ALL religions said basically that?

Send it,they could do with a good laugh.

[dafydd]

It's all about "labels" isn't it...

My petition doesn't mention term "U.F.O.", "Aliens", or "Outer Space".

The actual wording is:

To the Olympic Committee:

"We, the undersigned, do hereby request that 'a moment skyward' be added to the Opening Ceremonies of the London 2012 Olympics, as an open invitation to the 'god(s) of the heavens'- witnessed by so many throughout the ages, to descend once again."

---

If that isn't all inclusive, I don't know what is.

god(s) of the heavens...

Haven't ALL religions said basically that?

All religions have their own imaginary god or gods,which bit of that don't you understand? We are here to help.

[EHocking]

It's all about "labels" isn't it...

My petition doesn't mention term "U.F.O.", "Aliens", or "Outer Space".

The actual wording is:

To the Olympic Committee:

"We, the undersigned, do hereby request that 'a moment skyward' be added to the Opening Ceremonies of the London 2012 Olympics, as an open invitation to the 'god(s) of the heavens'- witnessed by so many throughout the ages, to descend once again."

---

If that isn't all inclusive, I don't know what is.

god(s) of the heavens...

Haven't ALL religions said basically that?Even if it isn't laughed at and rejected out of hand, it will be rejected merely by referring to the Olympic Charter (http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Olympic%20Charter/Charter_en_2010.pdf).

5. Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement..

Referring to a god or gods in a heaven or heavens is discriminatory, not just to many religious beliefs, but also to agnostic and atheist athletes as well as secular nations.

It is doomed to failure, and not just because of its initial stupidity.

[Psiload]

It's all about "labels" isn't it...

My petition doesn't mention term "U.F.O.", "Aliens", or "Outer Space".

The actual wording is:

To the Olympic Committee:

"We, the undersigned, do hereby request that 'a moment skyward' be added to the Opening Ceremonies of the London 2012 Olympics, as an open invitation to the 'god(s) of the heavens'- witnessed by so many throughout the ages, to descend once again."

---

If that isn't all inclusive, I don't know what is.

god(s) of the heavens...

Haven't ALL religions said basically that?

No, nearly all of the biggie religions in the world today say basically the exact opposite of that.

No God but God.

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth yada, yada, yada.

This term right here: god(s).

Yeah, that's what's known as blasphemy in the eyes monotheistically religious people. And that's not a good thing.

[dafydd]

deleted

[dafydd]

Apart from Jehovah and Allah,how many of these gods are you expecting to turn up,Kota?
A, Adad, Adapa, Adrammelech, Aeon, Agasaya, Aglibol, Ahriman, Ahura Mazda, Ahurani, Ai-ada, Al-Lat, Aja, Aka, Alalu, Al-Lat, Amm, Al-Uzza (El-'Ozza or Han-Uzzai), An, Anahita, Anath (Anat), Anatu, Anbay, Anshar, Anu, Anunitu, An-Zu, Apsu, Aqhat, Ararat, Arinna, Asherali, Ashnan, Ashtoreth, Ashur, Astarte, Atar, Athirat, Athtart, Attis, Aya, Baal (Bel), Baalat (Ba'Alat), Baau, Basamum, Beelsamin, Belit-Seri, Beruth, Borak, Broxa, Caelestis, Cassios, Lebanon, Antilebanon, and Brathy, Chaos, Chemosh, Cotys, Cybele, Daena, Daevas, Dagon, Damkina, Dazimus, Derketo, Dhat-Badan, Dilmun, Dumuzi (Du'uzu), Duttur, Ea, El, Endukugga, Enki, Enlil, Ennugi, Eriskegal, Ereshkigal (Allatu), Eshara, Eshmun, Firanak, Fravashi, Gatamdug, Genea, Genos, Gestinanna, Gula, Hadad, Hannahanna, Hatti, Hea, Hiribi, The Houri, Humban, Innana, Ishkur, Ishtar, Ithm, Jamshid or Jamshyd, Jehovah, Jesus, Kabta, Kadi, Kamrusepas, Ki (Kiki), Kingu, Kolpia, Kothar-u-Khasis, Lahar, Marduk, Mari, Meni, Merodach, Misor, Moloch, Mot, Mushdama, Mylitta, Naamah, Nabu (Nebo), Nairyosangha, Nammu, Namtaru, Nanna, Nebo, Nergal, Nidaba, Ninhursag or Nintu, Ninlil, Ninsar, Nintur, Ninurta, Pa, Qadshu, Rapithwin, Resheph (Mikal or Mekal), Rimmon, Sadarnuna, Shahar, Shalim, Shamish, Shapshu, Sheger, Sin, Siris (Sirah), Taautos, Tammuz, Tanit, Taru, Tasimmet, Telipinu, Tiamat, Tishtrya, Tsehub, Utnapishtim, Utu, Wurusemu, Yam, Yarih (Yarikh), Yima, Zaba, Zababa, Zam, Zanahary (Zanaharibe), Zarpandit, Zarathustra, Zatavu, Zazavavindrano, Ziusudra, Zu (Imdugud), Zurvan

China (170):
Ba, Caishen, Chang Fei, Chang Hsien, Chang Pan, Ch'ang Tsai, Chao san-Niang, Chao T'eng-k'ang, Chen Kao, Ch'eng Huang, Cheng San-Kung, Cheng Yuan-ho, Chi Po, Chien-Ti, Chih Jih, Chih Nii, Chih Nu, Ch'ih Sung-tzu, Ching Ling Tzu, Ch'ing Lung, Chin-hua Niang-niang, Chio Yuan-Tzu, Chou Wang, Chu Niao, Chu Ying, Chuang-Mu, Chu-jung, Chun T'i, Ch'ung Ling-yu, Chung Liu, Chung-kuei, Chung-li Ch'an, Di Jun, Fan K'uei, Fei Lien, Feng Pho-Pho, Fengbo, Fu Hsing, Fu-Hsi, Fu-Pao, Gaomei, Guan Di, Hao Ch'iu, Heng-o, Ho Po (Ping-I), Hou Chi, Hou T'u, Hsi Ling-su, Hsi Shih, Hsi Wang Mu, Hsiao Wu, Hsieh T'ien-chun, Hsien Nung, Hsi-shen, Hsu Ch'ang, Hsuan Wen-hua, Huang Ti, Huang T'ing, Huo Pu, Hu-Shen, Jen An, Jizo Bosatsu, Keng Yen-cheng, King Wan, Ko Hsien-Weng, Kuan Ti, Kuan Ti, Kuei-ku Tzu, Kuo Tzu-i, Lai Cho, Lao Lang, Lei Kung, Lei Tsu, Li Lao-chun, Li Tien, Liu Meng, Liu Pei, Lo Shen, Lo Yu, Lo-Tsu Ta-Hsien, Lu Hsing, Lung Yen, Lu-pan, Ma-Ku, Mang Chin-i, Mang Shen, Mao Meng, Men Shen, Miao Hu, Mi-lo Fo, Ming Shang, Nan-chi Hsien-weng, Niu Wang, Nu Wa, Nu-kua, Pa, Pa Cha, Pai Chung, Pai Liu-Fang, Pai Yu, P'an Niang, P'an-Chin-Lien, Pao Yuan-ch'uan, Phan Ku, P'i Chia-Ma, Pien Ho, San Kuan, Sao-ch'ing Niang, Sarudahiko, Shang Chien, Shang Ti, She chi, Shen Hsui-Chih, Shen Nung, Sheng Mu, Shih Liang, Shiu Fang, Shou-lao, Shun I Fu-jen, Sien-Tsang, Ssu-ma Hsiang-ju, Sun Pin, Sun Ssu-miao, Sung-Chiang, Tan Chu, T'ang Ming Huang, Tao Kung, T'ien Fei, Tien Hou, Tien Mu, Ti-tsang, Tsai Shen, Ts'an Nu, Ts'ang Chien, Tsao Chun, Tsao-Wang, T'shai-Shen, Tung Chun, T'ung Chung-chung, T'ung Lai-yu, Tung Lu, T'ung Ming, Tzu-ku Shen, Wa, Wang Ta-hsien, Wang-Mu-Niang-Niang, Weiwobo, Wen-ch'ang, Wu-tai Yuan-shuai, Xi Hou, Xi Wangmu, Xiu Wenyin, Yanwang, Yaoji, Yen-lo, Yen-Lo-Wang, Yi, Yu, Yu Ch'iang, Yu Huang, Yun-T'ung, Yu-Tzu, Zaoshen, Zhang Xi, , Zhin, Zhongguei, , Zigu Shen, , Zisun, Ch'ang-O

balto slavic: (125)
Aba-khatun, Aigiarm, Ajysyt, Alkonost, Almoshi, Altan-Telgey, Ama, Anapel, As-ava, Ausaitis, Austeja, Ayt'ar, Baba Yaga (Jezi Baba), Belobog (Belun), Boldogasszony, Breksta, Bugady Musun, Chernobog (Crnobog, Czarnobog, Czerneboch, Cernobog), Cinei-new, Colleda (Koliada), Cuvto-ava, Dali, Darzu-mate, Dazhbog, Debena, Devana, Diiwica (Dilwica), Doda (Dodola), Dolya, Dragoni, Dugnai, Dunne Enin, Edji, Elena, Erce, Etugen, Falvara, The Fates, The Fatit, Gabija, Ganiklis, Giltine, Hotogov Mailgan, Hov-ava, Iarila, Isten, Ja-neb'a, Jedza, Joda-mate, Kaldas, Kaltes, Keretkun, Khadau, Khursun (Khors), Kostrubonko, Kovas, Krumine, Kupala, Kupalo, Laima, Leshy, Marina, Marzana, Matergabiae, Mat Syra Zemlya, Medeine, Menu (Menulis), Mir-Susne-Khum, Myesyats, Nastasija, (Russia) Goddess of sleep., Nelaima, Norov, Numi-Tarem, Nyia, Ora, Ot, Patollo, Patrimpas, Pereplut, Perkuno, Perun, Pikuolis, Pilnytis, Piluitus, Potrimpo, Puskaitis, Rod, Rugevit, Rultennin, Rusalki, Sakhadai-Noin, Saule, Semargl, Stribog, Sudjaje, Svantovit (Svantevit, Svitovyd), Svarazic (Svarozic, Svarogich), Tengri, Tairgin, Triglav, Ulgen (Ulgan, lgn), Veles (Volos), Vesna, Xatel-Ekwa, Xoli-Kaltes, Yamm, Yarilo, Yarovit, Ynakhsyt, Zaria, Zeme mate, Zemyna, Ziva (Siva), Zizilia, Zonget, Zorya, Zvoruna, Zvezda Dennitsa, Zywie

Hindu (72):
Aditi, Adityas, Ambika, Ananta (Shesha), Annapurna (Annapatni), Aruna, Ashvins, Balarama, Bhairavi, Brahma, Buddha, Dakini, Devi, Dharma, Dhisana, Durga, Dyaus, Ganesa (Ganesha), Ganga (Ganges), Garuda, Gauri, Gopis, Hanuman, Hari-Hara, Hulka Devi, Jagganath, Jyeshtha, Kama, Karttikeya, Krishna, Krtya, Kubera, Kubjika, Lakshmi or Laksmi, Manasha, Manu, Maya, Meru, Nagas, Nandi, Naraka, Nataraja, Nirriti, Parjanya, Parvati, Paurnamasi, Prithivi, Purusha, Radha, Rati, Ratri, Rudra, Sanjna, Sati, Shashti, Shatala, Sitala (Satala), Skanda, Sunrta, Surya, Svasti-devi, Tvashtar, Uma, Urjani, Vach, Varuna, Vayu, Vishnu (Avatars of Vishnu: Matsya; Kurma; Varaha; Narasinha; Vamana; Parasurama; Rama; Krishna; Buddha; Kalki), Vishvakarman, Yama, Sraddha

Japan (53):
Aji-Suki-Taka-Hi-Kone, Ama no Uzume, Ama-terasu, Amatsu Mikaboshi, Benten (Benzai-Ten), Bishamon, Chimata-No-Kami, Chup-Kamui, Daikoku, Ebisu, Emma-O, Fudo, Fuji, Fukurokuju, Gekka-O, Hachiman, Hettsui-No-Kami, Ho-Masubi, Hotei, Inari, Izanagi and Izanami, Jizo Bosatsu, Jurojin, Kagutsuchi, Kamado-No-Kami, Kami, Kawa-No-Kami, Kaya-Nu-Hima, Kishijoten, Kishi-Mojin, Kunitokotatchi, Marici, Monju-Bosatsu, Nai-No-Kami, No-Il Ja-Dae, O-Kuni-Nushi, Omoigane, Raiden, Shine-Tsu-Hiko, Shoten, Susa-no-wo, Tajika-no-mikoto, Tsuki-yomi, Uka no Mitanna, Uke-mochi, Uso-dori, Uzume, Wakahirume, Yainato-Hnneno-Mikoi, Yama-No-Kami, Yama-no-Karni, Yaya-Zakurai, Yuki-Onne

India (43)
Agni, Ammavaru, Asuras, Banka-Mundi, Brihaspati, Budhi Pallien, Candi, Challalamma, Chinnintamma, Devas, Dyaush, Gauri-Sankar, Grhadevi, Gujeswari, Indra, Kali, Lohasur Devi, Mayavel, Mitra, Prajapati, Puchan, Purandhi, Rakshas, Rudrani, Rumina, Samundra, Sarasvati, Savitar, Siva (Shiva), Soma, Sura, Surabhi, Tulsi, Ushas, Vata, Visvamitra, Vivasvat, Vritra, Waghai Devi, Yaparamma, Yayu, Zumiang Nui, Diti

Other Asian: (31)
Dewi Shri, Po Yan Dari, Shuzanghu, Antaboga, Yakushi Nyorai, Mulhalmoni, Tankun, Yondung Halmoni, Aryong Jong, Quan Yin , Tengri, Uminai-gami, Kamado-No-Kami, Kunitokotatchi, Giri Devi, Dewi Nawang Sasih, Brag-srin-mo, Samanta-Bhadra, Sangs-rgyas-mkh, Sengdroma, Sgeg-mo-ma, Tho-og, Ui Tango, Yum-chen-mo, Zas-ster-ma-dmar-mo, Chandra, Dyaus, Ratri, Rodasi, Vayu, Au-Co

African: 250 Gods, Demigods and First Men
Abassi , Abuk , Adu Ogyinae , Ag, Agwe , Aida Wedo , Ajalamo, Aje, Ajok, Akonadi, Akongo, Akuj, Amma, Anansi, Asase Yaa, Ashiakle, Atai , Ayaba, Aziri, Baatsi, Bayanni, Bele Alua, Bomo rambi, Bosumabla, Buk, Buku, Bumba, Bunzi, Buruku, Cagn, Candit, Cghene, Coti, Damballah-Wedo, Dan, Deng, Domfe, Dongo, Edinkira, Ef�, Egungun-oya, Eka Abassi, Elephant Girl Mbombe, Emayian, Enekpe, En-Kai, Eseasar, Eshu, Esu, Fa, Faran, Faro, Fatouma, Fidi Mukullu, Fon, Gleti, Gonzuole, G, Gua, Gulu, Gunab, Hammadi, Hbiesso, Iku, Ilankaka, Imana, Iruwa, Isaywa, Juok, Kazooba, Khakaba, Khonvum, Kibuka, Kintu, Leb, Leza, Libanza, Lituolone, Loko, Marwe, Massim Biambe, Mawu-Lisa (Leza), Mboze, Mebeli, Minepa, Moombi, Mukameiguru, Mukasa, Muluku, Mulungu, Mwambu, Nai, Nambi, Nana Buluku, Nanan-Bouclou, Nenaunir, Ng Ai, Nyaliep, Nyamb, Nyankopon, Nyasaye, Nzame, Oboto, Obumo, Odudua-Orishala, Ogun, Olokun, Olorun, Orisha Nla, Orunmila, Osanyin, Oshe, Osun, Oya, Phebele, Pokot-Suk, Ralubumbha, Rugaba, Ruhanga, Ryangombe, Sagbata, Shagpona, Shango, Sopona, Tano, Thixo, Tilo, Tokoloshi, Tsui, Tsui'goab, Umvelinqangi, Unkulunkulu, Utixo, Wak, Wamara, Wantu Su, Wele, Were, Woto, Xevioso, Yangombi, Yemonja, Ymoa, Ymoja, Yoruba, Zambi, Zanahary , Zinkibaru,

Australian: 93 Gods, Goddesses and Places in the Dreamtime
Alinga, Anjea, Apunga, Arahuta, Ariki, Arohirohi, Bamapana, Banaitja, Bara, Barraiya, Biame, Bila, Boaliri, Bobbi-bobbi, Bunbulama, Bunjil, Cunnembeille, Daramulum, Dilga, Djanggawul Sisters, Eingana, Erathipa, Gidja , Gnowee, Haumia, Hine Titama, Ingridi, Julana, Julunggul, Junkgowa, Karora, Kunapipi-Kalwadi-Kadjara, Lia, Madalait, Makara, Nabudi, Palpinkalare, Papa, Rangi, Rongo, Tane, Tangaroa, Tawhiri-ma-tea, Tomituka, Tu, Ungamilia, Walo, Waramurungundi, Wati Kutjarra, Wawalag Sisters, Wuluwaid, Wuragag, Wuriupranili, Wurrunna, Yhi,

Buddhism: 10 Gods and Relatives of God
Aizen-Myoo, Ajima,Dai-itoku-Myoo, Fudo-Myoo, Gozanze-Myoo, Gundari-Myoo, Hariti, Kongo-Myoo, Kujaku-Myoo, Ni-O,

Carribean: 62 Gods, Monsters and Vodun Spirits
Agaman Nibo , Agwe, Agweta, Ah Uaynih, Aida Wedo , Atabei , Ayida , Ayizan, Azacca, Baron Samedi, Ulrich, Ellegua, Ogun, Ochosi, Chango, Itaba, Amelia, Christalline, Clairm, Clairmezin, Coatrischie, Damballah , Emanjah, Erzuli, Erzulie, Ezili, Ghede, Guabancex, Guabonito, Guamaonocon, Imanje, Karous, Laloue-diji, Legba, Loa, Loco, Maitresse Amelia , Mapiangueh, Marie-aime, Marinette, Mombu, Marassa, Nana Buruku, Oba, Obtala, Ochu, Ochumare, Oddudua, Ogoun, Olokum, Olosa, Oshun, Oya, Philomena, Sir�ne, The Diablesse, Itaba, Tsilah, Ursule, Vierge, Yemaya , Zaka,

Celtic: 166 Gods, Goddesses, Divine Kings and Pagan Saints
Abarta, Abna, Abnoba, Aine, Airetech,Akonadi, Amaethon, Ameathon, An Cailleach, Andraste, Antenociticus, Aranrhod, Arawn, Arianrod, Artio, Badb,Balor, Banbha, Becuma, Belatucadros, Belatu-Cadros, Belenus, Beli,Belimawr, Belinus, Bendigeidfran, Bile, Blathnat, Blodeuwedd, Boann, Bodus,Bormanus, Borvo, Bran, Branwen, Bres, Brigid, Brigit, Caridwen, Carpantus,Cathbadh, Cecht, Cernach, Cernunnos, Cliodna, Cocidius, Conchobar, Condatis, Cormac,Coronus,Cosunea, Coventina, Crarus,Creidhne, Creirwy, Cu Chulainn, Cu roi, Cuda, Cuill,Cyhiraeth,Dagda, Damona, Dana, Danu, D'Aulnoy,Dea Artio, Deirdre , Dewi, Dian, Diancecht, Dis Pater, Donn, Dwyn, Dylan, Dywel,Efnisien, Elatha, Epona, Eriu, Esos, Esus, Eurymedon,Fedelma, Fergus, Finn, Fodla, Goewyn, Gog, Goibhniu, Govannon , Grainne, Greine,Gwydion, Gwynn ap Nudd, Herne, Hu'Gadarn, Keltoi,Keridwen, Kernunnos,Ler, Lir, Lleu Llaw Gyffes, Lludd, Llyr, Llywy, Luchta, Lug, Lugh,Lugus, Mabinogion,Mabon, Mac Da Tho, Macha, Magog, Manannan, Manawydan, Maponos, Math, Math Ap Mathonwy, Medb, Moccos,Modron, Mogons, Morrig, Morrigan, Nabon,Nantosuelta, Naoise, Nechtan, Nedoledius,Nehalennia, Nemhain, Net,Nisien, Nodens, Noisi, Nuada, Nwywre,Oengus, Ogma, Ogmios, Oisin, Pach,Partholon, Penard Dun, Pryderi, Pwyll, Rhiannon, Rosmerta, Samhain, Segidaiacus, Sirona, Sucellus, Sulis, Taliesin, Taranis, Teutates, The Horned One,The Hunt, Treveni,Tyne, Urien, Ursula of the Silver Host, Vellaunus, Vitiris, White Lady,

Egyptian: 85 Gods, Gods Incarnate and Personified Divine Forces:
Amaunet, Amen, Amon, Amun, Anat, Anqet, Antaios, Anubis, Anuket, Apep, Apis, Astarte, Aten, Aton, Atum, Bastet, Bat, Buto, Duamutef, Duamutef, Hapi, Har-pa-khered, Hathor, Hauhet, Heket, Horus, Huh, Imset, Isis, Kauket, Kebechsenef, Khensu, Khepri, Khnemu, Khnum, Khonsu, Kuk, Maahes, Ma'at, Mehen, Meretseger, Min, Mnewer, Mut, Naunet, Nefertem, Neith, Nekhbet, Nephthys, Nun, Nut, Osiris, Ptah, Ra , Re, Renenet, Sakhmet, Satet, Seb, Seker, Sekhmet, Serapis, Serket, Set, Seth, Shai, Shu, Shu, Sia, Sobek, Sokar, Tefnut, Tem, Thoth,

Hellenes (Greek) Tradition (540 Gods, Demigods, Divine Bastards)
Acidalia, Aello, Aesculapius, Agathe, Agdistis, Ageleia, Aglauros, Agne, Agoraia, Agreia, Agreie, Agreiphontes, Agreus, Agrios, Agrotera, Aguieus, Aidoneus, Aigiokhos, Aigletes, Aigobolos, Ainia,Ainippe, Aithuia , Akesios, Akraia, Aktaios, Alalkomene, Alasiotas, Alcibie, Alcinoe, Alcippe, Alcis,Alea, Alexikakos, Aligena, Aliterios, Alkaia, Amaltheia, Ambidexter, Ambologera, Amynomene,Anaduomene, Anaea, Anax, Anaxilea, Androdameia,Andromache, Andromeda, Androphonos, Anosia, Antandre,Antania, Antheus, Anthroporraistes, Antianara, Antianeira, Antibrote, Antimache, Antimachos, Antiope,Antiopeia, Aoide, Apatouria, Aphneius, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apotropaios, Areia, Areia, Areion, Areopagite, Ares, Areto, Areximacha,Argus, Aridnus,Aristaios, Aristomache, Arkhegetes, Arktos, Arretos, Arsenothelys, Artemis, Asclepius, Asklepios, Aspheleios, Asteria, Astraeos , Athene, Auxites, Avaris, Axios, Axios Tauros,Bakcheios, Bakchos, Basileus, Basilis, Bassareus, Bauros, Boophis, Boreas , Botryophoros, Boukeros, Boulaia, Boulaios, Bremusa,Bromios, Byblis,Bythios, Caliope, Cedreatis, Celaneo, centaur, Cerberus, Charidotes, Charybdis, Chimera, Chloe, Chloris , Choreutes, Choroplekes, Chthonios, Clete, Clio, clotho,Clyemne, cockatrice, Crataeis, Custos, Cybebe, Cybele, Cyclops, Daphnaia, Daphnephoros, Deianeira, Deinomache, Delia, Delios, Delphic, Delphinios, Demeter, Dendrites, Derimacheia,Derinoe, Despoina, Dikerotes, Dimeter, Dimorphos, Dindymene, Dioktoros, Dionysos, Discordia, Dissotokos, Dithyrambos, Doris, Dryope,Echephyle,Echidna, Eiraphiotes, Ekstatophoros, Eleemon, Eleuthereus, Eleutherios, Ennosigaios, Enodia, Enodios, Enoplios, Enorches, Enualios, Eos , Epaine, Epidotes, Epikourios, Epipontia, Epitragidia, Epitumbidia, Erato, Ergane, Eribromios, Erigdoupos, Erinus, Eriobea, Eriounios, Eriphos, Eris, Eros,Euanthes, Euaster, Eubouleus, Euboulos, Euios, Eukhaitos, Eukleia, Eukles, Eumache, Eunemos, Euplois, Euros , Eurybe,Euryleia, Euterpe, Fates,Fortuna, Gaia, Gaieokhos, Galea, Gamelia, Gamelios, Gamostolos, Genetor, Genetullis, Geryon, Gethosynos, giants, Gigantophonos, Glaukopis, Gorgons, Gorgopis, Graiae, griffin, Gynaikothoinas, Gynnis, Hagisilaos, Hagnos, Haides, Harmothoe, harpy, Hegemone, Hegemonios, Hekate, Hekatos, Helios, Hellotis, Hephaistia, Hephaistos, Hera, Heraios, Herakles, Herkeios, Hermes, Heros Theos, Hersos, Hestia, Heteira, Hiksios, Hipp, Hippia, Hippios, Hippoi Athanatoi, Hippolyte, Hippolyte II, Hippomache,Hippothoe, Horkos, Hugieia, Hupatos, Hydra, Hypate, Hyperborean, Hypsipyle, Hypsistos, Iakchos, Iatros, Idaia, Invictus, Iphito,Ismenios, Ismenus,Itonia, Kabeiria, Kabeiroi, Kakia, Kallinikos, Kallipugos, Kallisti, Kappotas, Karneios, Karpophoros, Karytis, Kataibates, Katakhthonios, Kathatsios, Keladeine, Keraunos, Kerykes, Khalinitis, Khalkioikos, Kharmon, Khera, Khloe, Khlori,Khloris,Khruse, Khthonia, Khthonios, Kidaria, Kissobryos, Kissokomes, Kissos, Kitharodos, Kleidouchos, Kleoptoleme, Klymenos, Kore, Koruthalia, Korymbophoros, Kourotrophos, Kranaia, Kranaios, Krataiis, Kreousa, Kretogenes, Kriophoros, Kronides, Kronos,Kryphios, Ktesios, Kubebe, Kupris, Kuprogenes, Kurotrophos, Kuthereia, Kybele, Kydoime,Kynthia, Kyrios, Ladon, Lakinia, Lamia, Lampter, Laodoke, Laphria, Lenaios, Leukatas, Leukatas, Leukolenos, Leukophruene, Liknites, Limenia, Limnaios, Limnatis, Logios, Lokhia, Lousia, Loxias, Lukaios, Lukeios, Lyaios, Lygodesma, Lykopis, Lyseus, Lysippe, Maimaktes, Mainomenos, Majestas, Makar, Maleatas, Manikos, Mantis, Marpe, Marpesia, Medusa, Megale, Meilikhios, Melaina, Melainis, Melanaigis, Melanippe,Melete, Melousa, Melpomene, Melqart, Meses, Mimnousa, Minotaur, Mneme, Molpadia,Monogenes, Morpho, Morychos, Musagates, Musagetes, Nebrodes, Nephelegereta, Nereus,Nete, Nike, Nikephoros, Nomios, Nomius, Notos , Nyktelios, Nyktipolos, Nympheuomene, Nysios, Oiketor, Okyale, Okypous, Olumpios, Omadios, Ombrios, Orithia,Orius,Ortheia, Orthos, Ourania, Ourios, Paelemona, Paian, Pais, Palaios, Pallas, Pan Megas, Panakhais, Pandemos, Pandrosos, Pantariste, Parthenos, PAsianax, Pasiphaessa, Pater, Pater, Patroos, Pegasus, Pelagia, Penthesilea, Perikionios, Persephone, Petraios, Phanes, Phanter, Phatria, Philios, Philippis, Philomeides, Phoebe, Phoebus, Phoenix, Phoibos, Phosphoros, Phratrios, Phutalmios, Physis, Pisto, Plouton, Polemusa,Poliakhos, Polias, Polieus, Polumetis, Polydektes, Polygethes, Polymnia, Polymorphos, Polyonomos, Porne, Poseidon, Potnia Khaos, Potnia Pheron, Promakhos, Pronoia, Propulaios, Propylaia, Proserpine, Prothoe, Protogonos, Prytaneia, Psychopompos, Puronia, Puthios, Pyrgomache, Python, Rhea, Sabazios, Salpinx, satyr, Saxanus, Scyleia,Scylla, sirens, Skeptouchos, Smintheus, Sophia, Sosipolis, Soter, Soteria, Sphinx, Staphylos, Sthenias, Sthenios, Strife, Summakhia, Sykites, Syzygia, Tallaios, Taureos, Taurokeros, Taurophagos, Tauropolos, Tauropon, Tecmessa, Teisipyte, Teleios, Telepyleia,Teletarches, Terpsichore, Thalestris, Thalia, The Dioskouroi, Theos, Theritas, Thermodosa, Thraso, Thyonidas, Thyrsophoros, Tmolene, Toxaris, Toxis, Toxophile,Trevia, Tricephalus, Trieterikos, Trigonos, Trismegestos, Tritogeneia, Tropaios, Trophonius,Tumborukhos, Tyche, Typhon, Urania, Valasca, Xanthippe, Xenios, Zagreus, Zathos, Zephryos , Zeus, Zeus Katakhthonios, Zoophoros

Native American: 711 Gods, Heroes, and Anthropomorphized Facets of Nature
Aakuluujjusi, Ab Kin zoc, Abaangui , Ababinili , Ac Yanto, Acan, Acat, Achiyalatopa , Acna, Acolmiztli, Acolnahuacatl, Acuecucyoticihuati, Adamisil Wedo, Adaox , Adekagagwaa , Adlet , Adlivun, Agloolik , Aguara , Ah Bolom Tzacab, Ah Cancum, Ah Chun Caan, Ah Chuy Kak, Ah Ciliz, Ah Cun Can, Ah Cuxtal, Ah hulneb, Ah Kin, Ah Kumix Uinicob, Ah Mun, Ah Muzencab, Ah Patnar Uinicob, Ah Peku, Ah Puch, Ah Tabai, Ah UincirDz'acab, Ah Uuc Ticab, Ah Wink-ir Masa, Ahau Chamahez, Ahau-Kin, Ahmakiq, Ahnt Alis Pok', Ahnt Kai', Aholi , Ahsonnutli , Ahuic, Ahulane, Aiauh, Aipaloovik , Ajbit, Ajilee , Ajtzak, Akbaalia , Akba-atatdia , Akhlut , Akhushtal, Akna , Akycha, Alaghom Naom Tzentel, Albino Spirit animals , Alektca , Alignak, Allanque , Allowat Sakima , Alom, Alowatsakima , Amaguq , Amala , Amimitl, Amitolane, Amotken , Andaokut , Andiciopec , Anerneq , Anetlacualtiliztli, Angalkuq , Angpetu Wi, Anguta, Angwusnasomtaka , Ani Hyuntikwalaski , Animal spirits , Aningan, Aniwye , Anog Ite , Anpao, Apanuugak , Apicilnic , Apikunni , Apotamkin , Apoyan Tachi , Apozanolotl, Apu Punchau, Aqalax , Arendiwane , Arnakua'gsak , Asdiwal , Asgaya Gigagei, Asiaq , Asin , Asintmah, Atacokai , Atahensic, Aticpac Calqui Cihuatl, Atira, Atisokan , Atius Tirawa , Atl, Atlacamani, Atlacoya, Atlatonin, Atlaua, Atshen , Auilix, Aulanerk , Aumanil , Aunggaak , Aunt Nancy , Awaeh Yegendji , Awakkule , Awitelin Tsta , Awonawilona, Ayauhteotl, Azeban, Baaxpee , Bacabs, Backlum Chaam, Bagucks , Bakbakwalanooksiwae , Balam, Baldhead , Basamacha , Basket Woman , Bead Spitter , Bear , Bear Medicine Woman , Bear Woman , Beaver , Beaver Doctor , Big Heads, Big Man Eater , Big Tail , Big Twisted Flute , Bikeh hozho, Bitol, Black Hactcin , Black Tamanous , Blind Boy , Blind Man , Blood Clot Boy , Bloody Hand , Blue-Jay , Bmola , Bolontiku, Breathmaker, Buffalo , Buluc Chabtan, Burnt Belly , Burnt Face , Butterfly , Cabaguil, Cacoch, Cajolom, Cakulha, Camaxtli, Camozotz, Cannibal Grandmother , Cannibal Woman , Canotila , Capa , Caprakan, Ca-the-a, Cauac, Centeotl, Centzonuitznaua, Cetan , Chac Uayab Xoc, Chac, Chahnameed , Chakwaina Okya, Chalchihuitlicue, Chalchiuhtlatonal, Chalchiutotolin, Chalmecacihuilt, Chalmecatl, Chamer, Changing Bear Woman , Changing Woman , Chantico, Chaob, Charred Body , Chepi , Chibiabos , Chibirias, Chiccan, Chicomecoatl, Chicomexochtli, Chiconahui, Chiconahuiehecatl, Chie, Child-Born-in-Jug , Chirakan, Chulyen , Cihuacoatl, Cin-an-ev , Cinteotl, Cipactli, Cirap� , Cit Chac Coh, Cit-Bolon-Tum, Citlalatonac, Citlalicue, Ciucoatl, Ciuteoteo, Cizin, Cliff ogre , Coatlicue, Cochimetl, Cocijo, Colel Cab, Colop U Uichkin, Copil, Coyolxauhqui, Coyopa, Coyote , Cripple Boy , Crow , Crow Woman , Cum hau, Cunawabi , Dagwanoenyent , Dahdahwat , Daldal , Deohako, Dhol , Diyin dine , Djien , Djigonasee , Dohkwibuhch , Dzalarhons , Dzalarhons, Eagentci , Eagle , Earth Shaman , Eeyeekalduk , Ehecatl, Ehlaumel , Eithinoha , Ekchuah, Enumclaw , Eototo, Esaugetuh Emissee , Esceheman, Eschetewuarha, Estanatlehi , Estasanatlehi , Estsanatlehi, Evaki, Evening Star, Ewah , Ewauna, Face , Faces of the Forests , False Faces , Famine , Fastachee , Fire Dogs , First Creator , First Man and First Woman, First Scolder , Flint Man , Flood , Flower Woman , Foot Stuck Child , Ga'an, Ga-gaah , Gahe, Galokwudzuwis , Gaoh, Gawaunduk, Geezhigo-Quae, Gendenwitha, Genetaska, Ghanan, Gitche Manitou, Glispa, Glooskap , Gluscabi , Gluskab , Gluskap, Godasiyo, Gohone , Great Seahouse, Greenmantle , Gucumatz, Gukumatz, Gunnodoyak, Gyhldeptis, Ha Wen Neyu , Hacauitz , Hacha'kyum, Hagondes , Hahgwehdiyu , Hamatsa , Hamedicu, Hanghepi Wi, Hantceiitehi , Haokah , Hastseoltoi, Hastshehogan , He'mask.as , Hen, Heyoka , Hiawatha , Hino, Hisakitaimisi, Hokhokw , Hotoru, Huehuecoyotl, Huehueteotl, Huitaca , Huitzilopochtli, Huixtocihuatl, Hummingbird, Hun hunahpu, Hun Pic Tok, Hunab Ku, Hunahpu Utiu, Hunahpu, Hunahpu-Gutch, Hunhau, Hurakan, Iatiku And Nautsiti, Ich-kanava , Ictinike , Idliragijenget , Idlirvirisong, Igaluk , Ignirtoq , Ikanam , Iktomi , Ilamatecuhtli, Illapa, Ilyap'a, i'noGo tied , Inti, Inua , Ioskeha , Ipalnemohuani, Isakakate, Ishigaq , Isitoq , Issitoq , Ite , Itzamn, Itzananohk`u, Itzlacoliuhque, Itzli, Itzpapalotl, Ix Chebel Yax, Ixbalanque, Ixchel, Ixchup, Ixmucane, Ixpiyacoc, Ixtab, Ixtlilton, Ixtubtin, Ixzaluoh, Iya , Iyatiku , Iztaccihuatl, Iztacmixcohuatl, Jaguar Night, Jaguar Quitze, Jogah , Kaakwha , Kabun , Kabun , Kachinas, Kadlu , Ka-Ha-Si , Ka-Ha-Si , Kaik , Kaiti , Kan, Kana'ti and Selu , Kanati, Kan-u-Uayeyab, Kan-xib-yui, Kapoonis , Katsinas, Keelut , Ketchimanetowa, Ketq Skwaye, Kianto, Kigatilik , Kilya, K'in, Kinich Ahau, Kinich Kakmo, Kishelemukong , Kisin, Kitcki Manitou, Kmukamch , Kokopelli , Ko'lok , Kukulcan, Kushapatshikan , Kutni , Kutya'I , Kwakwakalanooksiwae , Kwatee , Kwekwaxa'we , Kwikumat , Kyoi , Lagua , Land Otter People , Lawalawa , Logobola , Loha, Lone Man , Long Nose , Loon , Loon Medicine , Loon Woman , Loo-wit, Macaw Woman, Macuilxochitl, Maho Peneta, Mahucutah, Makenaima , Malesk , Malina , Malinalxochi, Malsum, Malsumis , Mam, Mama Cocha, Man in moon , Manabozho , Manetuwak , Mani'to, Manitou , Mannegishi , Manu, Masaya, Masewi , Master of Life , Master Of Winds, Matshishkapeu , Mavutsinim , Mayahuel, Medeoulin , Mekala , Menahka, Meteinuwak , Metztli, Mexitl, Michabo, Mictecacihuatl, Mictlan, Mictlantecuhtli, Mikchich , Mikumwesu , Mitnal, Mixcoatl, Mongwi Kachinum , Morning Star, Motho and Mungo , Mulac, Muut , Muyingwa , Nacon, Nagenatzani, Nagi Tanka , Nagual, Nahual, Nakaw, Nanabojo, Nanabozho , Nanabush, Nanahuatzin, Nanautzin, Nanih Waiya, Nankil'slas , Nanook , Naum, Negafook , Nerrivik , Nesaru, Nianque , Nishanu , Nohochacyum, Nokomis, Nootaikok , North Star, Nujalik , Nukatem , Nunne Chaha , Ocasta, Ockabewis, Odzihozo , Ohtas , Oklatabashih, Old Man , Olelbis, Omacatl, Omecihuatl, Ometecuhtli, Onatha , One Tail of Clear Hair , Oonawieh Unggi , Opochtli, Oshadagea, Owl Woman , Pah , Pah, Paiowa, Pakrokitat , Pana , Patecatl, Pautiwa, Paynal, Pemtemweha , Piasa , Pikvhahirak , Pinga , Pomola , Pot-tilter , Prairie Falcon , Ptehehincalasanwin , Pukkeenegak , Qaholom, Qakma, Qiqirn , Quaoar , Quetzalcoatl, Qumu , Quootis-hooi, Rabbit, Ragno, Raven, Raw Gums , Rukko, Sagamores , Sagapgia , Sanopi , Saynday , Sedna, Selu, Shakuru, Sharkura, Shilup Chito Osh, Shrimp house, Sila , Sint Holo , Sio humis, Sisiutl , Skan , Snallygaster , Sosondowah , South Star, Spider Woman , Sta-au , Stonecoats , Sun, Sungrey , Ta Tanka , Tabaldak , Taime , Taiowa , Talocan, Tans , Taqwus , Tarhuhyiawahku, Tarquiup Inua , Tate , Tawa, Tawiscara, Ta'xet , Tcisaki , Tecciztecatl, Tekkeitserktock, Tekkeitsertok , Telmekic , Teoyaomqui, Tepeu, Tepeyollotl, Teteoinnan, Tezcatlipoca, Thobadestchin, Thoume', Thunder , Thunder Bird , Tieholtsodi, Tihtipihin , Tirawa , Tirawa Atius, Tlacolotl, Tlahuixcalpantecuhtli, Tlaloc, Tlaltecuhtli, Tlauixcalpantecuhtli, Tlazolteotl, Tohil, Tokpela , Tonantzin , Tonatiuh, To'nenile, Tonenili , Tootega , Torngasak, Torngasoak , Trickster/Transformer , True jaguar, Tsentsa, Tsichtinako, Tsohanoai Tsonoqwa , Tsul 'Kalu , Tulugaak , Tumas , Tunkan ingan, Turquoise Boy , Twin Thunder Boys, Txamsem , Tzakol, Tzitzimime, Uazzale , Uchtsiti, Ud , Uentshukumishiteu , Ueuecoyotl, Ugly Way , Ugni , Uhepono , Uitzilopochtli, Ukat , Underwater Panthers , Unhcegila , Unipkaat , Unk, Unktomi , Untunktahe , Urcaguary, Utea , Uwashil , Vassagijik , Voltan, Wabosso , Wabun , Wachabe, Wah-Kah-Nee, Wakan , Wakanda , Wakan-Tanka, Wakinyan , Wan niomi , Wanagi , Wananikwe , Watavinewa , Water babies , Waukheon , We-gyet , Wemicus , Wendigo , Wentshukumishiteu , White Buffalo Woman, Whope , Wi , Wicahmunga , Wihmunga , Windigo, Winonah, Wisagatcak , Wisagatcak, Wishpoosh , Wiyot , Wovoka , Wuya , Xaman Ek, Xelas , Xibalba, Xilonen, Xipe Totec, Xiuhcoatl, Xiuhtecuhtli, Xiuhtecutli, Xmucane, Xochipili , Xochiquetzal, Xocotl, Xolotl, Xpiyacoc, Xpuch And Xtah, Yacatecuhtli, Yaluk, Yanauluha , Ya-o-gah , Yeba Ka, Yebaad, Yehl , Yeitso, Yiacatecuhtli, Yolkai Estsan, Yoskeha , Yum Kaax, Yuwipi , Zaramama, Zipaltonal, Zotz,

Norse, 111 Deities, Giants and Monsters:
Aegir, Aesir, Alfrigg, Audumbla, Aurgelmir, Balder, Berchta, Bergelmir, Bor, Bragi, Brisings, Buri, Etin, Fenris, Forseti, Frey, Freyja, Frigga, Gefion, Gerda, Gode, Gymir, Harke, Heimdall, Hel, Hermod, Hodur, Holda, Holle, Honir, Hymir, Idun, Jormungandr, Ljolsalfs, Loki, Magni, Mimir, Mistarblindi, Muspel, Nanna, Nanni, Nerthus, Njord, Norns, Odin, Perchta, Ran, Rig, Segyn, Sif, Skadi, Skirnir, Skuld, Sleipnir, Surt, Svadilfari, tanngniotr, tanngrisnr, Thiassi, Thor, Thrud, Thrudgelmir, Thrym, Thurs, Tyr, Uller, Urd, Vali, Vali, Valkyries, Vanir, Ve, Verdandi, Vidar, Wode, Ymir

Pacific islands: 99 Deities, Demigods and Immortal Monsters:

Abeguwo, Abere, Adaro, Afekan, Ai Tupua'i, 'Aiaru, Ala Muki, Alalahe, Alii Menehune, Aluluei, Aruaka, Asin, Atanea, Audjal, Aumakua, Babamik, Bakoa, Barong, Batara Kala, Buring Une, Darago, Dayang-Raca, De Ai, Dogai, Enda Semangko, Faumea, Giriputri, Goga, Haumea, Hiiaka', Hina, Hine, Hoa-Tapu, 'Imoa, Io, Kanaloa, Kanaloa, Kane, Kapo, Kava, Konori, Ku, Kuhuluhulumanu, Kuklikimoku, Kukoae, Ku'ula, Laka, Laulaati, Lono, Mahiuki, MakeMake, Marruni, Maru, Maui, Melu, Menehune, Moeuhane, MOO-LAU, Ndauthina, Ne Te-reere, Nevinbimbaau, Ngendei, Nobu, Oro, Ove, Paka'a, Papa, Pele, Quat, Rangi, Rati, Rati-mbati-ndua, Ratu-Mai-Mbula, Rua, Ruahatu, Saning Sri, Ta'aroa, Taaroa, Tamakaia, Tane, Tanemahuta, Tangaroa, Tawhaki, Tiki, Tinirau, Tu, Tuli, Turi-a-faumea, Uira, Ukupanipo, Ulupoka, Umboko Indra, Vanuatu, Wahini-Hal, Walutahanga, Wari-Ma-Te-Takere, Whaitiri, Whatu, Wigan,

South American: 53 Deities, Demigods, Beings of Divine Substance:

Abaangui, Aclla, Akewa, Asima Si, Atoja, Auchimalgen, Axomama, Bachu, Beru, Bochica, Boiuna, Calounger, Catequil, Cavillaca, Ceiuci, Chasca, Chie, Cocomama, Gaumansuri, Huitaca, Iae, Ilyap'a, Ina, Inti, Ituana, Jamaina , Jandira, Jarina, Jubbu-jang-sangne, Ka-ata-killa, Kilya, Kuat, Kun, Luandinha, Lupi, Mama Allpa, Mama Quilla, Mamacocha, Manco Capac, Maret-Jikky, Maretkhmakniam, Mariana, Oshossi, Pachamac, Pachamam

[King of the Americas]

Why do you embrace it?

As an example of YOUR ignorance, I'll point out that you don't accept ANYTHING Rramjet has offered in the way of evidence, right?

EVERYTHING that he or I have offered is NOT what we propose, but something mundane, swamp gas bouncing off of Venus.

Right?

The stonework present at Puma Punku was created with copper and stone chisels?

THAT would only require that you 'didn't see all of the evidence'.

I embrace pointing out willful ignorance. ;)

[King of the Americas]

Apart from Jehovah and Allah,how many of these gods are you expecting to turn up,Kota?
A, Adad, Adapa, Adrammelech, Aeon,
..., Mariana, Oshossi, Pachamac, Pachamam

Maybe like 12...?

An ambassador and a few personal guards...

*Ideally, I'd hope they bring some athletes to compete.

[Psiload]

As an example of YOUR ignorance, I'll point out that you don't accept ANYTHING Rramjet has offered in the way of evidence, right?

EVERYTHING that he or I have offered is NOT what we propose, but something mundane, swamp gas bouncing off of Venus.

Right?

The stonework present at Puma Punku was created with copper and stone chisels?

THAT would only require that you 'didn't see all of the evidence'.

I embrace pointing out willful ignorance. ;)

On the occasions where we did see all the evidence; the Mexican Air Show UFO evidence, the Pearl Harbor Radar Operator anecdote, it did turn out to be MUNDANE, didn't it? MUNDANE confabulations, wasn't it?

[dafydd]

As an example of YOUR ignorance, I'll point out that you don't accept ANYTHING Rramjet has offered in the way of evidence, right?

EVERYTHING that he or I have offered is NOT what we propose, but something mundane, swamp gas bouncing off of Venus.

Right?

The stonework present at Puma Punku was created with copper and stone chisels?

THAT would only require that you 'didn't see all of the evidence'.

I embrace pointing out willful ignorance. ;)

Ramjet has presented no evidence.

[dafydd]

Maybe like 12...?

An ambassador and a few personal guards...

*Ideally, I'd hope they bring some athletes to compete.

Now you're just trolling but I'll play along because I need my daily giggles. Won't the Muslims be hacked off if only Jehovah turns up?

[King of the Americas]

On the occasions where we did see all the evidence; the Mexican Air Show UFO evidence, the Pearl Harbor Radar Operator anecdote, it did turn out to be MUNDANE, didn't it? MUNDANE confabulations, wasn't it?

In retrospect, I see this navy vet's 'story' as meaning "radar returns = airplanes...not 'birds' or heavy fog".

He said the radar returns were mistaken for something other than a Japanese Air Armada, and so the initial alarm was not sounded.

Have you read about or heard of the 1942 west coast U.F.O. event wherein we fired tens of thousands of anti-aircraft rounds, at this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Los_Angeles_LATimes.jpg

[King of the Americas]

Now you're just trolling but I'll play along because I need my daily giggles. Won't the Muslims be hacked off if only Jehovah turns up?

I don't understand how that is trolling. He asked a question, and I gave a serious answer.

If we invite them to the Olympics, then we look up in expectation that they show up, and they DO...enumerating how many might emerge is 'trolling'...? How?

I think they come back and end up saying all the prophets were right...about "God" being, but that it was/is wrong to worship any 'one' person, place, or thing as "God".

[dafydd]

I don't understand how that is trolling. He asked a question, and I gave a serious answer.

If we invite them to the Olympics, then we look up in expectation that they show up, and they DO...enumerating how many might emerge is 'trolling'...? How?

I think they come back and end up saying all the prophets were right...about "God" being, but that it was/is wrong to worship any 'one' person, place, or thing as "God".

Bringing their own athletes? Abandoning all attempts at serious discussion is trolling,in my view.

[King of the Americas]

Bringing their own athletes? Abandoning all attempts at serious discussion is trolling,in my view.

THAT'S exactly what I'd hope would happen. It would symbolize our equality.

Showing us that they are 'god' at all...

[bruto]

See, I think that believers would flock to the notion of welcoming "the gods" back, if only to prove that they were at least partially correct.

Skeptics are the toughest road to clear, because they have no desire to believe or accept even a singular report of such an existence.The idea that religious believers will happily accept a notion of the pagan gods they've rejected and cursed, whose images they have historically defaced, written records they have historically burned, and whose followers they have tortured, enslaved, stoned and burned, because they now have a fondness for any old gods is bizarre. Granted that most of the major religions have been housebroken somewhat over the centuries, so they won't actually flay you alive or burn you at the stake (though I would not take your ideas into Pakistan or Iran just yet), but I think you've gone past willful ignorance and into cloud-cuckoo land.