Merged Their Return

[carlitos]

There are some 20-38% of sightings that have no mundane answer or solution.

That's a lie.

 

[aggle-rithm]

And when they demonstrate intelligence, and flight characteristics beyond the ability of our craft, then what...?

Do we have a single photo or video demonstrating flight characteristics beyond the ability of our craft?

Distant memories are not good enough, as memory is very malleable and unlikely to be correct.

 

[King of the Americas]

That's a lie.

I may have misrepresented Rramjet's information, but there was no malice intended.

 

[carlitos]

It's a shame that KotA never realized the significance of this question, right from the first page.

In all the years that people have spent with domesticated animals, we haven't really had all that much success at learning bilateral communications with them. Why should we think that we will do any better with aliens?

 

[carlitos]

I may have misrepresented Rramjet's information, but there was no malice intended.

No one anywhere has accused you of malice. Merely intellectual dishonesty. Much like a young earth creationist, you ask us all to believe your myth and you don't honestly assess what people respond with. You just parade logical fallacies all over us. Which is dishonest, but not necessarily malicious. Your ignorance appears to be willful, and it certainly isn't convincing anyone here of anything about gods.

 

[King of the Americas]

Do we have a single photo or video demonstrating flight characteristics beyond the ability of our craft?

Distant memories are not good enough, as memory is very malleable and unlikely to be correct.

Videos and photographs can be faked, so even if I did have what you request, it would be of no matter, here.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I have no answer for you, and your first question, as I feel it doesn't matter to the discussion at hand.

What? YOU made this statement in this thread:

Oh, so ANY notion of equating U.F.O.'s and 'the gods' is not to be treated as serious...?

Thankfully sentiments like yours aren't leading all scientific discovery efforts.

But now "it doesn't matter to the discussion at hand"? Why did you say it at all if "it doesn't matter to the discussion at hand"?

So here goes again:

Oh, so ANY notion of equating U.F.O.'s and 'the gods' is not to be treated as serious...?

Thankfully sentiments like yours aren't leading all scientific discovery efforts.

...please tell me where I can find out about a serious "scientific discovery effort" which has a hypothesis even slightly like, "God beliefs are evidence of UFO sightings."

Next:

I'd further refer you to Rramjet's #'s. There are some 20-38% of sightings that have no mundane answer or solution. Your second question misrepresents the facts.

No, my question does not misrepresent the facts. The odds, based on the entirety of human history, are that the instances you cite have completely mundane explanations that we don't yet know. The fact that you don't know what those mundane explanations are doesn't mean that the actual explanations are non-mundane.

You persist in "I don't understand it, therefore it is something totally out of the ordinary," when in every case so far, the "out of the ordinary" has turned out to be completely ordinary. The fact that you can't think of a mundane explanation - and perhaps neither can I - doesn't mean that there is no mundane explanation.

So, again:

Why should this ONE example you are obsessed with turn out to be the one and only exception to the entire commonality of human experience to date?

 

[King of the Americas]

...

You took my statement out of context. I said, that goodness that your attitude isn't leading ALL scientific discovery, not this particular endeavor.

To some "god(s) of heaven" ARE mundane...

 

[aggle-rithm]

Videos and photographs can be faked, so even if I did have what you request, it would be of no matter, here.

Then you have NO evidence. None whatsoever.

As many people have been telling you all along.

 

[aggle-rithm]

To some "god(s) of heaven" ARE mundane...

To most, they don't exist.

As suppose non-existence can be considered mundane.

 

[Elizabeth I]

You took my statement out of context. I said, that goodness that your attitude isn't leading ALL scientific discovery, not this particular endeavor.

I did not take your quote out of context.

Furthermore, I did not limit the scientific investigation to "this particular endeavor." Please read what I actually posted:

please tell me where I can find out about a serious "scientific discovery effort" which has a hypothesis even slightly like, "God beliefs are evidence of UFO sightings."

"...a serious "scientific discovery effort," not "...this scientific discovery effort."

To some "god(s) of heaven" ARE mundane...

Then those people are seriously muddled in their thinking and need to do more reading about the history of scientific discoveries.

And some super-ancestors or super-guardians of the human race that "ascended" to wherever-you-say-they-went after a long sojourn on the earth without leaving any evidence at all as to their presence would not be mundane.

ETA: Why should this ONE example you are obsessed with turn out to be the one and only exception to the entire commonality of human experience to date?

 

[dafydd]

You took my statement out of context. I said, that goodness that your attitude isn't leading ALL scientific discovery, not this particular endeavor.

To some "god(s) of heaven" ARE mundane...

You saw some lights in the sky,therefore gods exist. I don't see the connection.

 

[King of the Americas]

Then you have NO evidence. None whatsoever.

As many people have been telling you all along.

I have nothing that would 'be accepted as evidence here'.

What would though...?

 

[carlitos]

King, for the third, fourth or maybe last time, would you please re-consider your abuse of punctuation? You are embarassing yourself.

 

[King of the Americas]

You saw some lights in the sky,therefore gods exist. I don't see the connection.

What I saw demonstrated an intelligence, that was non-human and more advanced that modern aircraft.

"Lights" alone didn't lead me to any conclusion...but I've said this exact thing to your exact statement at least a half a dozen times, so I'm sure I'll be saying it again.

 

[King of the Americas]

Removed inappropriate content.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[carlitos]

Even after the gratuitous insult, you insist on misusing an ellipsis. Tragic.

 

[King of the Americas]

Removed inappropriate content.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[dafydd]

What I saw demonstrated an intelligence, that was non-human and more advanced that modern aircraft.

"Lights" alone didn't lead me to any conclusion...but I've said this exact thing to your exact statement at least a half a dozen times, so I'm sure I'll be saying it again.

Bellman tactics won´t work here.

 

[Nonpareil]

What I saw demonstrated an intelligence, that was non-human and more advanced that modern aircraft.

No, you didn't. You saw something that you believe demonstrated an intelligence that was non-human, and was piloting an aircraft that was more advanced than modern aircraft. You have given us no valid reason for your continued maintenance that any of this is true, beyond "I think it was, therefore it was".