Merged Their Return

[King of the Americas]

We should devote time, money, and resources towards scientific projects of exploration and discovery. Terrestrial telescopes, space telescopes, SETI projects, space probes and planetary landers and rovers, etc... And not just space... the oceans and remote areas of planet Earth too. In other words... we should do exactly what we are doing, and what we have been doing for thousands of years... demonstrating a desire for, and commitment towards, discovery.

The message this sends to the ETs should be perfectly clear. Certainly much clearer than the cheap and silly theatrics of a televised 'looking up' ceremony lasting a few minutes.

Individuals HAVE been doing this for centuries, to no avail. What is it called when you do the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result?

My suggestion is that we try something we haven't yet...

 

[Psiload]

I wanted to assume all the anecdotes THAT they exist, were true. I did not mean to suggest that we should assume that all the anecdotes about them were true, as these findings are wholly without any factual basis.

In regards to the other thread, there IS plenty of good earnest advice that I very much plan to heed. My point is that many who posted under that thread, stated forthright, that a video, regardless of its contents wouldn't be evidence of anything. So, as far as what can be 'shared' here: Anecdotes & Videos, skeptics are safe from facing evidence contrary to their belief system. If you can get a free pass, to ignore first person reports and the video images they capture, then you are literally impenetrable to amendment. *If you can't be proven wrong, then you ARE wrong.

Lastly, I don't think it IS solely 'their' preference to descend or not. If the tribe came out every day, en masse, to greet the L.W.B., I think those flying it would feel obligated to at the very least make minimal efforts to meet them face to face...

When we act as a global community, to request or invite contact, I think this will 'move' them to some sort of action. That said, if they refused again to show themselves upon the world asking them to step out of the mist...then I think there is serious cause for concern.

There's your problem right there.

 

[Psiload]

Individuals HAVE been doing this for centuries, to no avail.

The scientific projects I mentioned above are far from "individual" endeavors. Certainly you understand this.

What is it called when you do the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result?

Wrong question. Here's what you should be asking... "What is it called when you do the same thing over and over again, and keep getting the same result?"

Answer: Confirmation.

My suggestion is that we try something we haven't yet...

Yes, and what you're suggesting is a Monty Python, "And now for something completely different."

...and we cut to something even more ridiculous.

 

[King of the Americas]

There's your problem right there.

Well, this IS merely my hypothesis...

 

[King of the Americas]

The scientific projects I mentioned above are far from "individual" endeavors. Certainly you understand this.



Wrong question. Here's what you should be asking... "What is it called when you do the same thing over and over again, and keep getting the same result?"

Answer: Confirmation.



Yes, and what you're suggesting is a Monty Python, "And now for something completely different."

...and we cut to something even more ridiculous.

They are also far from global endeavors. The part can't speak for the whole.

Mankind has never spoke to or motioned toward the gods as a global community.

When we do, something different will happen.

If this fails to spur a descent, then we've got problems.

 

[Psiload]

Well, this IS merely my hypothesis...

Merely? You expect that half the world's population should act upon a hypothesis you qualify with a merely?

 

[Psiload]

They are also far from global endeavors. The part can't speak for the whole.

Mankind has never spoke to or motioned toward the gods as a global community.

When we do, something different will happen.

If this fails to spur a descent, then we've got problems.

What problems? What problems will the ET's failure to show up after the great 'looking up' ceremony create?

 

[King of the Americas]

Merely? You expect that half the world's population should act upon a hypothesis you qualify with a merely?

Why not? Great steps forward take both faith and courage.

 

[King of the Americas]

What problems? What problems will the ET's failure to show up after the great 'looking up' ceremony create?

Hiding from someone who doesn't know you are there is one thing. Continuing to do so, when you know someone is looking for you, demonstrates sincere deception...

 

[Elizabeth I]

I wanted to assume all the anecdotes THAT they exist, were true. I did not mean to suggest that we should assume that all the anecdotes about them were true, as these findings are wholly without any factual basis.

WHAT??? You wanted to assume that all the anecdotes that they exist were true, but you didn't mean to suggest that all the anecdotes that they exist were true? Do you read what you write?

And you don't want to "assume that all the anecdotes...are true." You have completely discounted the stories of their kidnapping people and subjecting them to painful and humiliating experiences, or of their torturing helpless animals.

If the tribe came out every day, en masse, to greet the L.W.B., I think those flying it would feel obligated to at the very least make minimal efforts to meet them face to face...

Why?

When we act as a global community, to request or invite contact, I think this will 'move' them to some sort of action. That said, if they refused again to show themselves upon the world asking them to step out of the mist...then I think there is serious cause for concern.

Why? What concern? If there is no response, why not just assume there is nobody "up there" to reply?

You are saying, "They're up there, so if we 'sincerely' asked them to show themselves then they would. If they don't, that doesn't mean there's nothing there, it just means they are liars."

Also, why are you so determined to believe that these beings would act exactly like humans would, when, if they existed, their experience would be so different from ours as to be incomprehensible?

If this fails to spur a descent, then we've got problems.

You are saying, "They're up there, so if we 'sincerely' asked them to show themselves then they would. If they don't, that doesn't mean there's nothing there, it just means they are liars."

Mankind has never spoke to or motioned toward the gods as a global community.

There's that word you never claimed these beings were, again. The next time someone says you spoke of gods, please don't be dishonest enough to deny you ever said it.

 

[King of the Americas]

WHAT??? You wanted to assume that all the anecdotes that they exist were true, but you didn't mean to suggest that all the anecdotes that they exist were true? Do you read what you write?

And you don't want to "assume that all the anecdotes...are true." You have completely discounted the stories of their kidnapping people and subjecting them to painful and humiliating experiences, or of their torturing helpless animals.

Why?

Why? What concern? If there is no response, why not just assume there is nobody "up there" to reply?

You are saying, "They're up there, so if we 'sincerely' asked them to show themselves then they would. If they don't, that doesn't mean there's nothing there, it just means they are liars."

Also, why are you so determined to believe that these beings would act exactly like humans would, when, if they existed, their experience would be so different from ours as to be incomprehensible?



You are saying, "They're up there, so if we 'sincerely' asked them to show themselves then they would. If they don't, that doesn't mean there's nothing there, it just means they are liars."



There's that word you never claimed these beings were, again. The next time someone says you spoke of gods, please don't be dishonest enough to deny you ever said it.

I have, and will continue to use the term "gods", as I think it is both descriptive and vague. "They, them, heavenly agents, those that exist up there, and E.T's", all work for me too.

The assumption THAT they exist was as far as I wanted to go with assumptions. Accepting anecdotes as to who or specifically how they operate would be an exercise in futility, as they have appeared to a great many people in very different ways, doing very different things.

Because when someone extends a greeting, you return it.

I didn't say it would mean they are liars. I said it would be cause for concern, as they'd be ignoring our invitation.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Because when someone extends a greeting, you return it.

Why do you insist on assuming that putative entities whose experience can have been nothing like the earthly human experience would behave like humans?

Even if your silly belief that they were originally from earth turned out to be true, they will have been away from the earth for many hundreds, if not thousands, of generations, living in ways we could not comprehend. Why would their responses be like our responses?

And there are many people whose greetings I would not return.

ETA:

I said it would be cause for concern, as they'd be ignoring our invitation.

Why would that be "cause for concern"? Why should they accept our invitation? Why should they even recognize it as an invitation? What if their society is more like some animal societies and a direct prolonged gaze indicates aggressive intent? If there were such beings as you postulate, you have absolutely no reason to believe that they would respond to anything like humans would respond.

And you didn't answer my point about the anecdotes concerning negative experiences with your whatever/whoevertheyares.

 

[King of the Americas]

Why do you insist on assuming that putative entities whose experience can have been nothing like the earthly human experience would behave like humans?

Even if your silly belief that they were originally from earth turned out to be true, they will have been away from the earth for many hundreds, if not thousands, of generations, living in ways we could not comprehend. Why would their responses be like our responses?

And there are many people whose greetings I would not return.

Having been in our heavens since history began recording, I'd HAVE to assume they are familiar with our most ancient of cultural exercises.

That 'you' would refuse to return a greeting is simply an example of your obtuse sense of civility.

 

[carlitos]

I have, and will continue to use the term "gods", as I think it is both descriptive and vague. "They, them, heavenly agents, those that exist up there, and E.T's", all work for me too.

Intentionally using a vague term to identify something that you claim is a single phenonema should give you pause. Do you really expect logical thinkers to believe that something interpreted as differently as the stuff you listed is all the same thing? Ezekiel describes a wheel, as well as some winged creatures. A billion and a half Muslims bow to Mecca and pray five times a day. Scientologists think that "they" are "returning" by reincarnation.

ETA - forgot about the corn gods - what are those?

 

[Elizabeth I]

Having been in our heavens since history began recording, I'd HAVE to assume they are familiar with our most ancient of cultural exercises.

Why would you "have" to assume that? I repeat, if they exist, their experiences will be NOTHING like ours. You can assume nothing about them.

That 'you' would refuse to return a greeting is simply an example of your obtuse sense of civility.

Absolutely not. When I was younger, I often received obnoxious and sometimes even threatening greetings from men when I was doing nothing more than walking down the street minding my own business. I did not acknowledge them, either positively or negatively, because I perceived no safe way for me to do so.

I would not acknowledge the greeting of someone who had injured me or a member of my family.

I would not acknowledge the greeting of a corrupt politician.

I do not acknowledge the greetings of people on the street whom I perceive to be possible threats (admitted, there aren't many, but there are some.)

You see, you simply have no reason to assume that anyone, not even another human, will respond as you would.

NOW, WHAT ABOUT THE ANECDOTES ABOUT PAINFUL, HUMILIATING, OR CRUEL TREATMENT BY YOUR WHOEVERTHEYARES? Why won't you assume the truth of those?

 

[Psiload]

Why would you "have" to assume that? I repeat, if they exist, their experiences will be NOTHING like ours. You can assume nothing about them.


Absolutely not. When I was younger, I often received obnoxious and sometimes even threatening greetings from men when I was doing nothing more than walking down the street minding my own business. I did not acknowledge them, either positively or negatively, because I perceived no safe way for me to do so.

I would not acknowledge the greeting of someone who had injured me or a member of my family.

I would not acknowledge the greeting of a corrupt politician.

I do not acknowledge the greetings of people on the street whom I perceive to be possible threats (admitted, there aren't many, but there are some.)

You see, you simply have no reason to assume that anyone, not even another human, will respond as you would.

NOW, WHAT ABOUT THE ANECDOTES ABOUT PAINFUL, HUMILIATING, OR CRUEL TREATMENT BY YOUR WHOEVERTHEYARES? Why won't you assume the truth of those?

What? If your neighbor jumped over your fence, stomped flat your crops, mutilated your cattle, and mucked about with your buttocks, you wouldn't respond kindly to his, "Howdy do, neighbor?" next time you ran into him?

What kind of antisocial sourpuss are you?

 

[Elizabeth I]

What? If your neighbor jumped over your fence, stomped flat your crops, mutilated your cattle, and mucked about with your buttocks, you wouldn't respond kindly to his, "Howdy do, neighbor?" next time you ran into him?

What kind of antisocial sourpuss are you?

I know, I know, I'm working on it, but...[ch-click! Elizabeth I chambers a shell in her double-barrel...there's one of the varmints now! ]

 

[bruto]

Short answer to KotA's revised version.

First of all, I don't think the analogy to uncontacted tribes quite holds at this point, because although it's true that an uncontacted tribe might gain contact by soliciting it, those responding are known to be human, so it might well be easier for the uncontacted tribes to figure out a useful way to communicate their desire. Those tribes could solicit contact in many ways, not just by summoning those who fly over, since we know that they are aware of other human beings on the ground. In addition, the flyovers are easily confirmed, audible, and undeniable. It's clear that there is no faith required to believe in them, as evidenced by the groups of people observing them from the ground with very little excitement. It is condescending, unrealistic, ethnocentric and borders on racism to continue to characterize these people as so primitive that they have no idea what the planes flying over are or who is in them. A discussion that involves uncontacted tribes must be based at least a little bit on an understanding of what an uncontacted tribe is and is not.

By contrast, we cannot be sure of the nature of our presumed ET's (remember, among other things, that the authorized KotA version is that they have "evolved" since their tenure on earth), and not enough people have made sightings to confirm how they behave, what they think, how they communicate, nor in any way to predict when, where or whether they'll arrive. Airplanes flying over your village to take pictures, even from a kilometer away, make a lot of noise, and give plenty of warning. UFO sightings, on the other hand, tend to be isolated, unpredictable, fleeting and hard to describe. We have no evidence that the ET's are reliable or that they have any interest or desire to interact with us.

As to the basic question, I do not believe that there is any reason to expect any particular scheme of invitation to work. None have so far, and all schemes proposed are entirely speculative. From the practical point of view, a scheme that requires the participation of a very large number of people must obviously require that a very large number of people be convinced. Unfortunately for the KotA's of this world, convincing is not their strong suit, and herein lies the fatal flaw in his program, even if, by some long chance, his theories turned out to be true.

I hope that counts as a serious answer to the question, as it is intended to be, even though I think KotA's ideas are hot air. Hot air or not, I think it's an interesting exercise to think about. What do we actually want, what would be good for us, and what risks would be worthwhile?

 

[aggle-rithm]

The horse is no more.
It has passed on.
It is a dead horse.

Then beating it some more won't hurt, right?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Well, this IS merely my hypothesis...

Technically, a hypothesis is a testable proposition. Your's isn't testable, so it would be more accurate to say "this IS merely wild conjecture..."