• 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

King of the Americas said:
Can you address this:

"Let us assume for the moment that E.T. of a particular sort exist. The assumed E.T. are technologically advanced beings, once resident on earth, and correspond to the myths of ancient gods. It is stipulated for the purposes of this thread that their existence is supported by evidence, so the quality of that evidence is not a subject of discussion. If you wanted them to come back to earth, how would you go about this? Disallowed in this thread are questions about the veracity of the E.T. themselves, suggestions that the E.T. are something other than those specified, and discussions of whether we should wish them back at all."
Click to expand...

Well that would largely depend on three factors:

1. Why did they remove themselves from the surface?

2. Why have they chosen not to reveal themselves publicly before?

3. What is it they want from us ultimately?

At this time the evidence is tenuous regarding thier existance but we have granted that for the sake of discussion. Once we have established some real information not just speculation about at least one of the factors above perhaps we might stand a chance of coming up with a reasonable plan.

If we are just playing pretend we can have some fun with lots of plausible things that answer the question. However if you want to make this an actionalable plan then please provide for the board the data (not just speculation) you have regarding how you have arrived at an answer to the questions above.
 
I thought I saw the horse twitch for a moment, so I'll pick up my stick again and....


Even with the presumption that the ET's exist, etc., we are left with one gaping problem. There is no known way to communicate with them and no accurate historical report of success in this. KotA's proposed "moment skyward" is entirely unsupported by evidence or experience. It also presupposes that the ET's would be aware of the gesture. This requires either that they are constantly monitoring everywhere, and would see it as it unfolds, or that they would be paying attention (reading, tuning in?) to publicity beforehand. If the latter, then the gesture should be unnecessary. They would already know they're being summoned. If the former, it seems odd that creatures and craft so ubiquitous are so hard to spot.

The simple conclusion is that we know absolutely nothing about how to communicate with the ET's, and any and all plans to do so are entirely speculative.
 
carlitos said:
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?
Click to expand...

If you described a horse drawn carriage, a bicycle, and an automobile to someone who had never seen them, calling them all 'modes of transportation' wouldn't be inaccurate.

Balloons, helicopters, and gliders are all flying machines, but that doesn't mean one would describe them in the same manner.

It might be vague to describe humans as using machines to travel, but that doesn't mean it isn't a true statement.
 
King of the Americas said:
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...
Click to expand...
Make up your mind.

Or is this yet another example of your recall failing you again?
King of the Americas said:
I don't take them at 'face value'...

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

They are merely more technologically advanced than we are.
Click to expand...
 
Elizabeth I said:
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?
Click to expand...

Within this thread, we are assuming that they have always existed in our heavens, and that people have seen them. I don't think it is beyond reason and logic to further assume that they've seen "us", and are at least as familiar as we are with with our animal brethren. If a band of chimps all gathered around a naturist's blind, waving, he might think they 'can see him', and that they want something...

I'll concede here that ALL greetings and or invitations are not return, for good reason. And for what it's worth, I am sorry you've garnered such negative attention. The goods news is that it likely happened because you are an attractive person who carries themselves with confidence. Ugly fat people usually don't get "catcalls". So, take it as a compliment and move on. Good looking talented people garner attention. Personally, I prefer the attention I get to being completely ignored like the plague.

That said, your point is made. If we want to get someone to respond, we should steer clear of comments like, "Hey Emerson, nice boobs, you wanna screw?"

---

ETA:

We're not assuming anecdotes about what or how they are, because they've changed. Today's cattle mutilators could be yesterday manna providers. They gave Noah warning of a flood, then vaporized a couple of towns. They raised the dead, but also told Abraham to kill his kid. So, to say they are ONE thing or act(ed) in ONE consistent fashion would be inaccurate.
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
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?
Click to expand...

First, thank you for your response.

Now, I don't think we can assume that this tribe 'knows' us, or that all of them are fully aware of our society and how we function. Now, if we saw all of them carrying an iPod wearing a Lady Gaga's concert tees, that might change. If when the L.W.B. flew over, ALL the villagers ran and hid, we could assume they DON'T want to make contact with us. We ONLY know what we can 'see' about them. NONE of this really matters, as the question is "How would WE know they wanted to make contact with US?" The other questions about how on tribesman would prove to another THAT L.W.B.'s existed, is moot, and was more an attempt to get skeptics to answer how a forward positioned scout could 'prove' his sightings.

That they ARE and have been 'sighted' throughout history is evidence that they HAVE made their existence known to some.

Lastly, I agree with you, in that I think trying to make contact through ways and manners already attempted would end fruitlessly. Which is why I am suggesting a different course. Getting people to participate in a research endeavor SHOULDN'T require everyone to believe a positive outcome will certainly result. The possibility of a ground breaking discovery SHOULD be enough to spur participation...

Again, I thank you for your response.
 
Last edited:
Waterman said:
Well that would largely depend on three factors:

1. Why did they remove themselves from the surface?

2. Why have they chosen not to reveal themselves publicly before?

3. What is it they want from us ultimately?

At this time the evidence is tenuous regarding thier existance but we have granted that for the sake of discussion. Once we have established some real information not just speculation about at least one of the factors above perhaps we might stand a chance of coming up with a reasonable plan.

If we are just playing pretend we can have some fun with lots of plausible things that answer the question. However if you want to make this an actionalable plan then please provide for the board the data (not just speculation) you have regarding how you have arrived at an answer to the questions above.
Click to expand...

The answer to you queries are all the same, "We just don't know."

The ONLY way we are going to find the answer(s) you seek, is to make contact.

So, how do we do that...?
 
Last edited:
EHocking said:
Your disingenuous snipping of my post in order to misrepresent it saddens, but does not surprise, me.Not to an atheist.

The rest is theist semantics.
Click to expand...

Which part of your ignorance did I leave out?

If an atheist can't grasp the difference between "God", and "god(s)", then 'atheism' isn't their problem, reading comprehension is.
 
King of the Americas said:
***snip***
ETA:

We're not assuming anecdotes about what or how they are, because they've changed. Today's cattle mutilators could be yesterday manna providers. They gave Noah warning of a flood, then vaporized a couple of towns. They raised the dead, but also told Abraham to kill his kid. So, to say they are ONE thing or act(ed) in ONE consistent fashion would be inaccurate.
Click to expand...

If you acknowledge that they don't act in a consistent fashion, and you're aware that they've acted in a destructive and homicidal manner towards us in the past, then why would you assume that inviting them to make contact with us would be good and beneficial?

The historical precedent of contact with "them" does NOT indicate that they particularly care about our health and well-being. What leads you to believe that next time will be the charm?
 
Psiload said:
If you acknowledge that they don't act in a consistent fashion, and you're aware that they've acted in a destructive and homicidal manner towards us in the past, then why would you assume that inviting them to make contact with us would be good and beneficial?

The historical precedent of contact with "them" does NOT indicate that they particularly care about our health and well-being. What leads you to believe that next time will be the charm?
Click to expand...

For the same reason I don't treat today's German people like Jew killing Nazis...

Recent activities seem to take a more distant approach to our development. Tagging and releasing, with the obligatory fertility exam.

No more towns being leveled, and no more manna from heaven.

Time, it is said, heals all wounds.

I THINK, our current society's making contact, will be different than contact(s) made in the past, because we are different...
 
carlitos said:
Are you joking here?
Click to expand...

As, with ALL jokes, it's the containment of potential truth that makes it funny. ;)

---

"Your Mamma is so fat when she hauls ass, she takes 2 trips!"

(I had a joke in me, and it just had to get out, no real offense to your mother.)
 
Last edited:
King of the Americas said:
It is not 'now' testable, but that doesn't make it "wild conjecture".
Click to expand...

There is no technical term for a guess which is based on faulty evidence and is not testable. The reason there is no technical term for it is that it is nowhere near ready to be taken seriously by scientists or rational people from any other field.

I can call it "wild conjecture" or "idle speculation" or "something you pulled out of your butt" or anything else I want, because it's not a claim that deserves to be taken seriously.
 
King of the Americas said:
For the same reason I don't treat today's German people like Jew killing Nazis...

Recent activities seem to take a more distant approach to our development. Tagging and releasing, with the obligatory fertility exam.

No more towns being leveled, and no more manna from heaven.

Time, it is said, heals all wounds.

I THINK, our current society's making contact, will be different than contact(s) made in the past, because we are different...
Click to expand...

You're speculating on the moral development of a group of people who haven't been shown to exist. Do you realize how crazy that makes you sound?

You may as well be talking about the mating rituals of gnomes.
 
aggle-rithm said:
You're speculating on the moral development of a group of people who haven't been shown to exist. Do you realize how crazy that makes you sound?

You may as well be talking about the mating rituals of gnomes.
Click to expand...

It is crazy to think that 'things', "change"...?

I am not sure if are intellectually developed enough to engage in this exchange.
 
King of the Americas said:
It is crazy to think that 'things', "change"...?

I am not sure if are intellectually developed enough to engage in this exchange.
Click to expand...

It is crazy to think that things that don't exist change.

You are ASSUMING the existence of some sort of civilization or collective for which there is no evidence except a few phenomena you, personally, don't understand.

Furthermore, you have demonstrated your lack of understanding of the scientific method and critical thinking in general. This makes it extremely unlikely that you in fact do have rational support for your claims and just haven't communicated it to us effectively.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom