• 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:
You can only arrive at that conclusion by ignoring ALL 3 of these phases of evidence...

-Expert anecdotal evidence
-Photographs and videos
-Historical notations
Click to expand...

We don't ignore these at all. We examine them, find them lacking, then reject them.

Or, we have so far. Who knows what the future will bring.

ETA: After a while, it becomes only logical to reject certain classes of claims, because they are prove so consistently false over time.
 
Last edited:
Elizabeth I said:
...

When are you going to answer my question?
Click to expand...

I've answered that question.

"Because what I saw could be described as having god-like ability."

I don't understand the 'disconnect' you are having with my description(s), and those that have been recorded before. Do, you really refuse to accept that 'they' have been in our heavens, and that LOTS of people have seen them??? Or, do you hold that we 'know' there IS something unknown, you just don't want to label it with the term intelligence? Or, do you think these recordings are ALL pure fiction...?

How do you explain what I saw? Do you think I hallucinated, that I am lying to get attention, what?
 
aggle-rithm said:
... only logical to reject certain classes of claims, because they are prove so consistently false over time.
Click to expand...

...but your stance requires you toss ALL of them, from every source, throughout time itself...not certain classes of claims, BUT EVERY ONE...ALL of them...

Not a single notation, video, picture, or person's anecdote is to be accepted as even a partial truth.

Which is all that I am arguing, here. "That our ancestors got it half right."

There ARE 'agents of heaven', for they aren't "God".

THIS is far more likely, and is a simpler explanation, as to why so many have claimed to have seen 'them'...
 
King of the Americas said:
...but your stance requires you toss ALL of them, from every source, throughout time itself...not certain classes of claims, BUT EVERY ONE...ALL of them...
Click to expand...

According to whom? That's certainly not what I said.

Not a single notation, video, picture, or person's anecdote is to be accepted as even a partial truth.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for anyone else, but I do accept some of these as partial truth. For instance, if I am shown a video of a flying saucer, I accept that it is indeed a video of something. It's up to the person trying to convince me that it represents what he says it does.

As for anecdotes, I accept that they are stories that may or may not be true. They may be completely true, they may be partially true, they may be lies, confabulations, or misinterpretations. Who knows? That's why anecdotes aren't that valuable.

Which is all that I am arguing, here. "That our ancestors got it half right."
Click to expand...

Again, they may have, but who knows?

You CLAIM to know, but it is really just blind faith, not knowledge.

There ARE 'agents of heaven', for they aren't "God".
Click to expand...

False dichotomy. Begging the question.

THIS is far more likely, and is a simpler explanation, as to why so many have claimed to have seen 'them'...
Click to expand...

So many have claimed to have seen something. Maybe they have all seen the same thing. Maybe they have seen different things. Who knows? Even if you could answer this question (you can't), you would still have to find some way to get from "unidentified things in the sky" to "heavenly agents".

You don't get there by skipping all the difficult steps and just proclaiming that your conclusion is correct.
 
King of the Americas said:
...but your stance requires you toss ALL of them, from every source, throughout time itself...not certain classes of claims, BUT EVERY ONE...ALL of them...

Not a single notation, video, picture, or person's anecdote is to be accepted as even a partial truth.

Which is all that I am arguing, here. "That our ancestors got it half right."

There ARE 'agents of heaven', for they aren't "God".

THIS is far more likely, and is a simpler explanation, as to why so many have claimed to have seen 'them'...
Click to expand...

You are making the same mistake yourself.

We have centuries of stories about the fairies/elven girls dancing in the forests, luring in the unwary traveler.
Somehow you abandon that whole body of evidence in favour of some newfangled ideas of "Flying saucers". As if the elves would abandon their forests in favour of flittering around in the sky.
 
Toke said:
You are making the same mistake yourself.

We have centuries of stories about the fairies/elven girls dancing in the forests, luring in the unwary traveler.
Somehow you abandon that whole body of evidence in favour of some newfangled ideas of "Flying saucers". As if the elves would abandon their forests in favour of flittering around in the sky.
Click to expand...

Fairies and elven dancing girls are localized, whereas "god(s)" are global

AND people aren't seeing fairies and elves anymore.

People have always, and continue to see "gods of heaven"...
 
King of the Americas said:
Fairies and elven dancing girls are localized, whereas "god(s)" are global
Click to expand...
If you had bothered to read up on it you would find that the "Supernatural" have manifested slightly differently on a GLOBAL scale for milenia.
The elves are just the north European Version.

AND people aren't seeing fairies and elves anymore.
Click to expand...
And your point is... That elves are not in fashion anymore?
Do really you think that allows you to ignore the collected body of evidence/myths?

People have always, and continue to see "gods of heaven"...
Click to expand...
Yes, your point is?
 
Last edited:
King of the Americas said:
Not a single notation, video, picture, or person's anecdote is to be accepted as even a partial truth.
Click to expand...

Speaking of videos...

I just googled "UFO video" and have looked through quite a few of them. So far, I haven't seen one that is even remotely convincing.

Can you point me to the video that you find most convincing as evidence of the "heavenly agents"?

ETA: Most of these videos are seriously embarrassing. Seriously.
 
Last edited:
King of the Americas said:
I've answered that question.

"Because what I saw could be described as having god-like ability."

I don't understand the 'disconnect' you are having with my description(s), and those that have been recorded before. Do, you really refuse to accept that 'they' have been in our heavens, and that LOTS of people have seen them??? Or, do you hold that we 'know' there IS something unknown, you just don't want to label it with the term intelligence? Or, do you think these recordings are ALL pure fiction...?

How do you explain what I saw? Do you think I hallucinated, that I am lying to get attention, what?
Click to expand...
I don't know what you saw. I do know that for all of recorded history, non-mundane explanations have given way to mundane ones, and I see no reason to think that that pattern will change any time soon. "I don't know" is no reason to jump immediately to the god in the car as an explanation. Are you also one of those creationists who insist that because we don't know what caused the Big Bang, it must have been God?

Have people been drawing pictures of weird **** ever since we learned to draw? Yes, and what does that prove? That people have wild imaginations, that people misinterpret things they see, that people are searching for some graphic way to portray a non-graphic concept ("love," "beauty," "wisdom"), or just that some people don't draw very well. It doesn't prove that people saw "God/god."

Finally, I don't think you know what you saw either. I think that for some reason you have a deep personal investment in having a non-mundane explanation for your experience be the correct explanation, and you are therefore impervious to any possibility to the contrary. You keep insisting that we look at "history" but refuse to see where history leads us - to an understanding that the "magical" explanation eventually yields to the non-magical, prosaic, mundane one.
 
Toke said:
If you had bothered to read up on it you would find that the "Supernatural" have manifested slightly differently on a GLOBAL scale for milenia.
The elves are just the north European Version.


And your point is... That elves are not in fashion anymore?
Do really you think that allows you to ignore the collected body of evidence/myths?

Yes, your point is?
Click to expand...

If I write a story 'to be read as A STORY', and not to be taken as anything but fiction, how does that story compare to one of an actual event???

Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not at all familiar with elven lore or how often they are sighted.

But even if those stories were true, that doesn't have anything to do with U.F.O. sightings and their validity.

My point is that "people have always and still continue to see 'agents of heaven'", and that these sightings represent an actual reality.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Speaking of videos...

I just googled "UFO video" and have looked through quite a few of them. So far, I haven't seen one that is even remotely convincing.

Can you point me to the video that you find most convincing as evidence of the "heavenly agents"?

ETA: Most of these videos are seriously embarrassing. Seriously.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTZ7O9cfpPQ

The SECOND time this happened, the government was forced to launch Project Blue Book.
 
Elizabeth I said:
I don't know what you saw. I do know that for all of recorded history, non-mundane explanations have given way to mundane ones, and I see no reason to think that that pattern will change any time soon. "I don't know" is no reason to jump immediately to the god in the car as an explanation. Are you also one of those creationists who insist that because we don't know what caused the Big Bang, it must have been God?

Have people been drawing pictures of weird **** ever since we learned to draw? Yes, and what does that prove? That people have wild imaginations, that people misinterpret things they see, that people are searching for some graphic way to portray a non-graphic concept ("love," "beauty," "wisdom"), or just that some people don't draw very well. It doesn't prove that people saw "God/god."

Finally, I don't think you know what you saw either. I think that for some reason you have a deep personal investment in having a non-mundane explanation for your experience be the correct explanation, and you are therefore impervious to any possibility to the contrary. You keep insisting that we look at "history" but refuse to see where history leads us - to an understanding that the "magical" explanation eventually yields to the non-magical, prosaic, mundane one.
Click to expand...

First "God" is one, "God" is all. In the beginning, there was nothing but a vast emptiness and the singularity. Then "God" said, let there be light... THAT was the Big Bang. The Universe's laws began to set up, at that point, and they are un-amendable.

Why were people drawing flying saucers...? http://www.2012.com.au/Historical.paintings.pdf

There is no magic, but there are advanced technologies, which look like magic to the un-informed.
 
Halfcentaur said:
...

As for making contact, I don't think us coming together and pleading for them would illicit any response at all on their part.
Click to expand...

mmm...illicit...um..things...did someone say illicit? Who put the 'E in elicit? Evor the Injuneer?


I'm from the Mars Attacks/Jared Diamond school: 'contact' would probably be a very bad thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom