• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Their Return

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

Right. Which is why I've said they AREN'T "God", just someone with better/more advanced technology than we now posses.
 
EHocking said:
Yet you have no evidence for either of these assertions.
Click to expand...

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

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

'I' have seen this evidence directly, to arrive at the conclusion that, "They exist."
 
King of the Americas said:
Right. Which is why I've said they AREN'T "God", just someone with better/more advanced technology than we now posses.
Click to expand...


But just exactly like gods (and leprechauns and ghosts and bigfoot and...), "they" are able to exist without so much as a scant trace of evidence that they do. Amazingly the "they" in this instance cruise around the sky in vehicles invisible to all modern air traffic detection and weather observation equipment, and they have the ability to allow a select few people to see them while making themselves completely undetectable by millions of other people within the same sight lines. I find the incredulity simply unbelievable! (<--- Intentional irony. :D)
 
King of the Americas said:
Our craft can't make 90 degree angle turns, nor can we meld our craft together like so much clay.

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

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

Not to 'you'...

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

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

A man on the frontier of discovery knows things you don't. Dismiss his reports at the peril of timely truth.
 
King of the Americas said:
Not to 'you'...

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

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

That's it.

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

I didn't invent a fantasical explanation of aliens in the heavens to rationalise it though.
 
King of the Americas said:
Not to 'you'...

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

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

A man on the frontier of discovery knows things you don't. Dismiss his reports at the peril of timely truth.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you can't have an opinion about it. You're dead, the ogre killed you after you misperceived a "murderer with an axe".
 
King of the Americas said:
If Earth was the only terra 'they' have known, how could they be re-classified as alien. E.T.'s sure, but not alien. Imagine an American who takes up permanent resident on a boat in international waters. Their kids wouldn't become citizens of another nation, especially if they never made landfall somewhere else. And if they stayed within international water, or orbit in this case, I wouldn't revoke their Earthly residence card.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but the oceans are a part of this planet. Leaving the land is not leaving the earth. A long enough residence off the land, involving the voluntary forsaking of citizenship in any state, and especially if it resulted (and remember you have made that assertion) in further evolution after the departure, would likely make the descendants of the boat dwellers alien to any country on land. If they decided to come to shore, they would land as immigrants if they still counted as human at all.
 
King of the Americas said:
Not to 'you'...

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

The finding isn't less true until it has been proven inaccurate.
A man on the frontier of discovery knows things you don't. Dismiss his reports at the peril of timely truth.
Click to expand...
So are you saying that N-rays and phlogiston and the canals of Mars were true while they waited to be discredited?
 
bruto said:
Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but the oceans are a part of this planet. Leaving the land is not leaving the earth. A long enough residence off the land, involving the voluntary forsaking of citizenship in any state, and especially if it resulted (and remember you have made that assertion) in further evolution after the departure, would likely make the descendants of the boat dwellers alien to any country on land. If they decided to come to shore, they would land as immigrants if they still counted as human at all.
Click to expand...

KoA is currently implementing Standard Woo Operating Procedure.

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

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

3. You are now free to use the "aliens vs. heavenly agents" as a substitute argument to keep the discussion going forever without ever bringing up the embarrassing subject of your ridiculous claims.
 
King of the Americas said:
carlitos said:
Actually, it is exactly the same phenomena. When confronted with something they couldn't explain, people assumed gods. The difference is, most people have better information now. Primitive cultures had an excuse that you do not have.
Click to expand...
Right. Which is why I've said they AREN'T "God", just someone with better/more advanced technology than we now posses.
Click to expand...

Un - freaking - believable.

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

...

I think lower case "god(s)" is the most accurate term one could use, historically speaking. Leave the "omni" out of it, but acknowledge they know more than us.
...
Click to expand...
You just corrected me for using the word that you suggested. Please get your story straight.

ETA - aggle-rithm made the same point while I was typing.
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
Un - freaking - believable.

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

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

You see King, here's that skepticism thing again. When a person has been conclusively proven to be unable to keep a story straight over the course of a few days, it would be madness to accept their account of an unsupported long past event as accurate. It's not "No information from anyone's senses is ever accurate.", as you keep setting up as a straw man. It's "You, personally, have proven to be totally unreliable and therefore your account can be safely ignored until some actual evidence supporting it is provided.".
 
King - start a new thread and propose a testable, falsifiable hypothesis for what you saw. Until then, further discussion is pointless.
 
KoA, in case there's any confusion, I thought I would make it clear why falsifiability is so important.

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

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

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

However, if you say "I KNOW phenomenon 'A' exists", then you are a fool or a liar. You can't possibly know about something whose existence leaves exactly the same footprint on the Universe as...well, nothing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom