Merged Their Return

[BTMO]

I am not suggesting we try shooting at them...

My beliefs about them are based on their actual behavior toward humanity, recently.

I created a petition, and posted a link within this thread. I myself haven't even signed it yet, as I think you have to be a facebook member. I will likely set up a more user-friendly petition, and then begin an earnest endeavor to collect signatures.

I am just guessing you won't be part of the undersigned?

This the sticking point. There is no "them". There is no solid evidence for them. There are anecdotes, most of which can be explained very easily by simple misidentification of "them", and the remaining stories can (at worst) be resolved by simply asking what else might have been seen.

NONE of the stories make any sense (if taken at face value), many are contradictory, and all are of a vanishly low probability of actually describing a visitation by anything non-human.

 

[King of the Americas]

This the sticking point. There is no "them". There is no solid evidence for them. There are anecdotes...

...

There WAS no solid evidence for bioluminicent fish. Then we sent a guy to the bottom of the ocean where guess what? HE SAW GLOWING FISH.

His 'anecdote' was dismissed as a hallucination potentially caused by the pressure.

The sticking point is REALLY science's inability to process first hand accounts of undocumented realities, and instead writing people who have witnessed 'unknown' things as suffering from a lapse in judgement.

I am telling you, they exist.

Dismissing my report is a bad idea if you are interested in the truth.

 

[GeeMack]

I am telling you, they exist.

Dismissing my report is a bad idea if you are interested in the truth.

But lest anyone forget, this is a game of just-pretend as clearly outlined in the opening post.

 

[Marduk]

There WAS no solid evidence for bioluminicent fish. Then we sent a guy to the bottom of the ocean where guess what? HE SAW GLOWING FISH.

His 'anecdote' was dismissed as a hallucination cause by the pressure.

Don't suppose you have a link for that either do you, just another unsubstantiated claim based on something you read but have forgotten the details of isn't it.

I'm guessing its loosely based on the claim made for Alexander the Great, that at the siege of Tyre, in 332 BCE, he had "a very fine barrel made entirely of white glass" and that he and his two companions were stunned by what they saw by the bright lights emanating from the diving machine. Alexander is quoted as saying "...the world is damned and lost. The large and powerful fish devour the small fry."

see there the fish werent bioluminescent, it was the machine that had the light source

so once again, we're seeing how good your memory and understanding of basic facts fails at every turn

what a crock

 

[BTMO]

There WAS no solid evidence for bioluminicent fish. Then we sent a guy to the bottom of the ocean where guess what? HE SAW GLOWING FISH.

His 'anecdote' was dismissed as a hallucination potentially caused by the pressure.

The sticking point is REALLY science's inability to process first hand accounts of undocumented realities, and instead writing people who have witnessed 'unknown' things as suffering from a lapse in judgement.

I am telling you, they exist.

Dismissing my report is a bad idea if you are interested in the truth.

But... you haven't reported anything - apart from vague assertions that you have proof.

 

[Marduk]

But... you haven't reported anything - apart from vague assertions that you have proof.

to be fair, he has misreported a lot, in a woo's eyes that counts for something

 

[bruto]

There WAS no solid evidence for bioluminicent fish. Then we sent a guy to the bottom of the ocean where guess what? HE SAW GLOWING FISH.

His 'anecdote' was dismissed as a hallucination potentially caused by the pressure.

The sticking point is REALLY science's inability to process first hand accounts of undocumented realities, and instead writing people who have witnessed 'unknown' things as suffering from a lapse in judgement.

I am telling you, they exist.

Dismissing my report is a bad idea if you are interested in the truth.

That's a bizarre analogy to use here, since science has shown, in this very instance, a conspicuous ability to process accounts of bioluminescent fish, by going down and finding them, collecting them, naming them, and so forth. We now all know that they exist, and owing to science's reluctance to take first hand accounts as fact without further investigation, we can trust that those fish do actually exist outside the imagination.

I am always amazed at the willingness of people promoting the unknown to provide examples of previously doubted phenomena that have passed the test that their own unknown has never passed, as if joining the company of the doubted confers some sort of honorary existence on anything.

 

[Marduk]

That's a bizarre analogy to use here,

Its not an analogy, its just an example of Kings inability to remember details
he first made this claim in february 2010 having just watched UFO files, episode : Deep Sea UFOs

I called him on it then and he offered this as evidence
http://www.productivitydevelopment.com/26 Deep Sea Explore.pdf
from here

It was September 1932, and William Beebe was going down in the waters of Bermuda to a depth of 2,200 feet. A telephone line linked his tiny craft to the ship above. From there his voice would be broadcast to America by the National Broadcasting Company. Just as the ascent began Beebe saw two barracuda-shaped fish slowly swim past, each about six feet long, with
large eyes and numerous luminescent teeth. A string of twenty bluish lights ran along their sides, and additional lights hung from long whiplike protrusions below them.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5573381#post5573381

if you read the pdf you'll see its an account of William Beebes first descent in a diving bell
you'll notice that it makes no mention of
1. there being no evidence of bioluminscent fish up til then, in fact they were known in the ancient greek period
2. that anyone dismissed Beebe's claims
3. that anyone mentioned pressure being responsible
4. that the glowing fish were spotted in the deep, it actually says "Just as the ascent began Beebe saw two barracuda-shaped fish slowly swim past", as Barracuda are pelagic and not benthic fish thats hardly surprising

still, this is just more evidence that KotA is happy to misreport facts when it suits him and to lie about them when they don't

because as he's already claimed recently that his memory of events is not at fault we can't believe that can we
of course its not what he was saying last year, last year he was saying this

My memory IS really awful, sometimes.

maybe he forgot how bad his memory is, that could happen


if you follow the previous conversation back further you'd see that his original claim was that the first person down in a diving bell claimed to have seen underwater lights, he was attempting to use that claim to add weight to his idea that the non-aliens live underwater
so no matter which way you look at it, its complete bs.

 

[Zanders]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8660940.stm

Theres another of the things youve based your belief on shown to be utterly wrong


Your beliefs about them is based on crackpot woo ufo sites and your lucid imagination and need to fabricate evidence and lie to people

your credibility doesn't exist at this forum, that you think you have some is just more evidence that youre wrong

Shhh, don't bring actual science in to this.

 

[Marcus]

You've missed my point. While I don't believe in aliens, I do conclude that there is something intelligent in our heavens, that isn't us.

The historical record is littered with tales and pictures of E.T's or heavenly agents.

They have always been 'up there', and I hold that they may have even evolved here, long ago, and simply ascended to the heavens.

Oh, I got your point, I know you still believe in heavenly agents, or domestic E.T.s, or whatever you want to call them. I was giving you partial credit for not believing in aliens.

I am curious about your belief system, though. Where are these E.T.s located? Near Earth space, the moon, perhaps the asteriods? I assume they must be somewhere in the solar system to qualify as local.

 

[Stray Cat]

That's a bizarre analogy to use here, since science has shown, in this very instance, a conspicuous ability to process accounts of bioluminescent fish, by going down and finding them, collecting them, naming them, and so forth. We now all know that they exist, and owing to science's reluctance to take first hand accounts as fact without further investigation, we can trust that those fish do actually exist outside the imagination.

Indeed.

I imagine that instead of actually going to find and examine the fish and accurately report their descriptions, habitats, etc. KotA would have suggested that the scientists all sat on the beach with a 'moment seaward to invite the glowing fish to ascend from the deep'

 

[King of the Americas]

But... you haven't reported anything - apart from vague assertions that you have proof.

I have 'reported' non-human controlled star-like objects.

 

[King of the Americas]

... We now all know that they exist, and owing to science's reluctance to take first hand accounts as fact without further investigation, we can trust that those fish do actually exist outside the imagination.

I am always amazed at the willingness of people promoting the unknown to provide examples of previously doubted phenomena that have passed the test that their own unknown has never passed, as if joining the company of the doubted confers some sort of honorary existence on anything.

They've ALWAYS existed. Our awareness of them began when the first person saw them, except that the awareness stayed with the initial reporter AND those who took his sighting as truth, and did not penetrate the walls of science.

'I' am amazed that you are still ignoring the heart of the argument here.

Dismissing anecdotes of unknown entities is STUPID.

Saying that someone couldn't have possibly seen what they propose, because said entity is presently unknown to science, won't lead to new discoveries.

 

[Stray Cat]

Saying that someone couldn't have possibly seen what they propose, because said entity is presently unknown to science, won't lead to new discoveries.

No one is saying that though.
What we are saying is that your assertions about the origin of the lights you saw are far beyond the evidence you have to support them.

 

[GeeMack]

I have 'reported' non-human controlled star-like objects.

No. You have reported, in a variety of versions, what you believe to be non-human controlled star-like objects. And even at that, you can't seem to make your description actually match the characteristics of stars. This whole thing is a sham. Not a drop of truth to it from the word go.

 

[King of the Americas]

Shhh, don't bring actual science in to this.

Especially when it is irrelevant to the issue at hand...

Although, I must say I am not at all surprised that there were some sexy Neanderthals that managed to hook up with our Sapien ancestors. Their existence overlapped by like 10,000 years, after all.

And this 'overlap' is what is important. The Sapiens took off while the Neanderthals pretty much died off.

I DON'T think the 'one drop rule' applies here. We aren't Neanderthals.

The nod went to the Sapiens, some of which dabbled in the horizontal arts with a few Neanderthals.

 

[King of the Americas]

...

I am curious about your belief system, though. Where are these E.T.s located? Near Earth space, the moon, perhaps the asteriods? I assume they must be somewhere in the solar system to qualify as local.

Where we can't and or aren't looking...I presume.

 

[King of the Americas]

Indeed.

I imagine that instead of actually going to find and examine the fish and accurately report their descriptions, habitats, etc. KotA would have suggested that the scientists all sat on the beach with a 'moment seaward to invite the glowing fish to ascend from the deep'

No.

I am suggesting that science launch a 'serious' investigation into the great many anecdotes of U.F.O.'s rather than calling the people who make the reports crazy, mis-informed, or mistaken.

Then again Project Blue Book's conclusion was that U.F.O.'s merely didn't represent a national security threat. This after 'they' flew over D.C. TWICE, even appearing on the front page of the Post.

So if the U.F.O.'s buzzed D.C. twice, yet 'science' has failed to positively identify them.

And now, mentioning them as a real entity spawns ridicule.

"a moment seaward"...that IS funny though...

 

[King of the Americas]

No one is saying that though.
What we are saying is that your assertions about the origin of the lights you saw are far beyond the evidence you have to support them.

Had they flown and or operated in a normal manner, and with recognizable flight patterns, I'd have reached a different conclusion.

I didn't just witness "lights"... The ability 'they' demonstrated led me to my E.T. non-human origin conclusion.

 

[Stray Cat]

No.

I am suggesting that science launch a 'serious' investigation into the great many anecdotes of U.F.O.'s rather than calling the people who make the reports crazy, mis-informed, or mistaken.

The main hurdle to overcome here though are the countless UFOlogists who don't actually do science and yet try to pass their work off as if they were. Mainstream science does right to not be involved with such shinanigans.

The other problem is that when science has looked into UFO reports, they don't actually see anything that warrants further inquiry. But really that shouldn't stop any UFOlogist who is claiming to be doing science from actually doing some valid science to support his belief.

Then again Project Blue Book's conclusion was that U.F.O.'s merely didn't represent a national security threat. This after 'they' flew over D.C. TWICE, even appearing on the front page of the Post.

Which kind of shows the level of threat from even the most well publicised UFO reports and also the unending ability of some people to accept everything they read as long as it confirms their belief.

So if the U.F.O.'s buzzed D.C. twice, yet 'science' has failed to positively identify them.

Science makes accurate observations and forms conclusions based upon the available evidence. The evidence from the Washington UFO's is neither accurately reported, nor free from misconception. The photos have been shown to be possible mundane in origin. If there is anything 'otherworldly' about them, it is not apparent in either the formation of the story nor the evidence commonly used to support it.

And now, mentioning them as a real entity spawns ridicule.

Mentioning them doesn't usually spawn ridicule. Ridiculous comments about them on the other hand...

"a moment seaward"...that IS funny though...

I'm glad you appreciate the humour.