• 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

calebprime said:
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.
Click to expand...

Found it.
The "Outside Context Problem" from Ian Banks Excession
The usual example given to illustrate an Outside Context Problem was imagining you were a tribe on a largish, fertile island; you'd tamed the land, invented the wheel or writing or whatever, the neighbours were cooperative or enslaved but at any rate peaceful and you were busy raising temples to yourself with all the excess productive capacity you had, you were in a position of near-absolute power and control which your hallowed ancestors could hardly have dreamed of and the whole situation was just running along nicely like a canoe on wet grass... when suddenly this bristling lump of iron appears sailless and trailing steam in the bay and these guys carrying long funny-looking sticks come ashore and announce you've just been discovered, you're all subjects of the Emperor now, he's keen on presents called tax and these bright-eyed holy men would like a word with your priests.
Click to expand...
 
So millennia of sightings are just hand waved away because you think flying saucers are more fashionable?
Has it occured to you that if they are here they would be much more likely to dance at the magic places in the woods than to fly around at night flashing radar operators and others.
 
Toke said:
So millennia of sightings are just hand waved away because you think flying saucers are more fashionable?
Has it occured to you that if they are here they would be much more likely to dance at the magic places in the woods than to fly around at night flashing radar operators and others.
Click to expand...

Nope, not at all.

I just don't think a comparison is necessary.

Each should be investigated, for its own merits.
 
King of the Americas said:
Ah...except that it wasn't done 'modernly'...
Click to expand...

So why could it not have been done by humans, if the video does indeed represent flying objects?

It freaked people the hell out!

The actual finding was that 'they' didn't represent a national security threat.
Click to expand...

That was ONE finding, and it's the finding that UFOlogists usually trot out to imply that there was definitely something, but it just didn't represent a threat. The further implication is that "they" COULD represent a threat if they wanted to (ooooh, spooky!).

The finding could also mean that the UFO's are explainable in terms of what we already know, and these explanations do not involve a threat to national security. Only a small percentage of the investigated sightings weren't explained by mundane events. Of the remainder, there was no reason to believe they were anything special, there just wasn't enough information to make a determination.
 
aggle-rithm said:
So why could it not have been done by humans, if the video does indeed represent flying objects?



That was ONE finding, and it's the finding that UFOlogists usually trot out to imply that there was definitely something, but it just didn't represent a threat. The further implication is that "they" COULD represent a threat if they wanted to (ooooh, spooky!).

The finding could also mean that the UFO's are explainable in terms of what we already know, and these explanations do not involve a threat to national security. Only a small percentage of the investigated sightings weren't explained by mundane events. Of the remainder, there was no reason to believe they were anything special, there just wasn't enough information to make a determination.
Click to expand...

That video was taken in "1952", and witnessed by thousands, then ACTED upon by Congress.

The FINDING, was that they didn't represent a national security threat.

How can you reach any conclusion other than...

"They exist."

'Something' flew over D.C. TWICE in 1952, and no military craft or guns could shoot them down.

A large formation of aircraft buzzed D.C. TWICE...that requires advanced technology...

Is it really a leap for conclude that 'something' in our heavens is better than us?
 
It doesn't even matter if I agreed with your premise, the way you force and contort logic into whatever you want it to support is obvious and awkward. You are far too emotionally invested in this idea of yours, and you need to come to terms with that.
 
King of the Americas said:
That video was taken in "1952", and witnessed by thousands, then ACTED upon by Congress.

The FINDING, was that they didn't represent a national security threat.

How can you reach any conclusion other than...

"They exist."

'Something' flew over D.C. TWICE in 1952, and no military craft or guns could shoot them down.

A large formation of aircraft buzzed D.C. TWICE...that requires advanced technology...
Click to expand...

But the video you showed me, which was the most convincing video you could find, does not depict these things.

All woo claims seem to be like this. "Something wondrous happened, but of course, you don't get to SEE it. You'll just have to believe the anecdotes."

The problem is, you've got stories about things that move in impossible ways, and you've got a video of things that appear to be moving very slowly. These two things might appear to corroborate each other, but they don't. You have to assume the veracity of the anecdotes to conclude that the video is evidence of something extraordinary, and vice-versa.

See the problem?

Is it really a leap for conclude that 'something' in our heavens is better than us?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.
 
Halfcentaur said:
It doesn't even matter if I agreed with your premise, the way you force and contort logic into whatever you want it to support is obvious and awkward. You are far too emotionally invested in this idea of yours, and you need to come to terms with that.
Click to expand...

Ignoring my arguments and commenting on a presumed emotional attachment to my conclusion...?

Why would you concern yourself with my emotional state?

I can assure you, I'm fine, and not emotionally attached to anything, except maybe my penis and my oldest pairs of blue jeans.
 
Last edited:
King of the Americas said:
Nope, not at all.
I just don't think a comparison is necessary.
Each should be investigated, for its own merits.
Click to expand...

You have not given any rational basis for waving off the older manifestations.
Why don't you start reading up on some of the more readily accessible primary sources, e.g. the Grimm brothers.
That would be far more credible research than what you are doing here.
 
King of the Americas said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you are a creationist. That explains a lot.

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.
Click to expand...
You say the images are of flying saucers. I don't agree.

First, the webpage you linked to is titled "Historical artwork and UFOs," showing from the outset that it represents a biased viewpoint, not an impartial investigation.

Second, I see no "flying saucers" in those images. I see attempts to represent the sun, to graphically symbolize the holiness of some of the subjects depicted, or simply to embellish the work in question. No flying saucers.

aggle-rithm said:
But the video you showed me, which was the most convincing video you could find, does not depict these things.

All woo claims seem to be like this. "Something wondrous happened, but of course, you don't get to SEE it. You'll just have to believe the anecdotes."

The problem is, you've got stories about things that move in impossible ways, and you've got a video of things that appear to be moving very slowly. These two things might appear to corroborate each other, but they don't.
Click to expand...
Yep, anyone who has seen a C-5 in flight can tell you that it appears to move so slowly that you can't believe it achieves enough lift to stay in the air. As someone else so eloquently said, "Oooohhh, spooooky!"
 
aggle-rithm said:
But the video you showed me, which was the most convincing video you could find, does not depict these things.

All woo claims seem to be like this. "Something wondrous happened, but of course, you don't get to SEE it. You'll just have to believe the anecdotes."

The problem is, you've got stories about things that move in impossible ways, and you've got a video of things that appear to be moving very slowly. These two things might appear to corroborate each other, but they don't. You have to assume the veracity of the anecdotes to conclude that the video is evidence of something extraordinary, and vice-versa.

See the problem?



Yes, it is.
Click to expand...

First, before you go spouting off as to what this video depicts, you should read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington_D.C._UFO_incident
 
Elizabeth I said:
So you are a creationist. That explains a lot.


You say the images are of flying saucers. I don't agree.

First, the webpage you linked to is titled "Historical artwork and UFOs," showing from the outset that it represents a biased viewpoint, not an impartial investigation.

Second, I see no "flying saucers" in those images. I see attempts to represent the sun, to graphically symbolize the holiness of some of the subjects depicted, or simply to embellish the work in question. No flying saucers.

...
Click to expand...

I don't think "God" directly created us, no. That said, I think that 'the gods' have been aiding our development from the get-go. I don't know what that makes me, but it is clear that evolution alone wasn't the only thing responsible for what and who we are.

Please review the painting:

"The Madonna with Saint Giovannino", painted in the 15th century by Domenico Ghirlandaio (1449-1494).

That is NOT the sun. It is a silver glowing saucer, with what appears to be windows...

I don't know how much art you've studied, but from what I've read, the sun is usually round, yellow, white, or red orange. It isn't usually featured as a silver disk or oval.
 
Last edited:
Elizabeth I said:
Before you go basing your life and personal validation on what's in this link, you should read this:

WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY
Click to expand...

Would you like another source perhaps?

I know it wasn't you, but when I asked another poster what it would take to convince them they said:

A video with lots of eyewitnesses.

So I present exactly that, and guess what?

"Oh, we could re-create that with modern devices..."

This event 'happened', Liz.

Sorry if that pops your ignorance bubble...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utX5HvMO0PM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom