Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

Correa Neto said:
Hey, Robumptimbo, check this amazing picture of an unidentified object:

[qimg]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/BUMPER-CAR.jpg[/qimg]

Better than every single piece of imagery ever presented before to back UFOs!
Click to expand...

Shouldn't that be enfolded in the loving embrace of a deep sea squid fish?
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
So, based on the responses by KotA to the question raised in the OP, "How Many UFO "Believers" Know it's Pretend?", the answer is, "Apparently not all of them." ;)
Click to expand...

As I remarked in my retort, 'I' am not a believer...but rather a "knower".

I am not here to speak for believers, so maybe I shouldn't even be posting here. ;)
 
RoboTimbo said:
How have you ruled them all out as applying to you?
Click to expand...

he hasn't bothered to, he knows remember, hes convinced that his sighting makes him special so doesnt worry about the truth so much as his own belief. He's even decided that he isn't a believer, because he knows better
lol
 
Last edited:
I don't quite understand your question...

What I saw disobeyed the laws of flight and physics as I understood them.
Click to expand...
May I ask how you know that extraterrestrials exist and have the ability to break the laws of flight and physics as you understood them? Or to phrase it differently, how is your conclusion more sound than that of the Aztecs when they concluded the Spaniards were gods, or that of the old Norsemen when they figured thunder and lightning bolts had to be the work of a god with a "thunder hammer"?

The problem with identifying a UFO as an extraterrestrial vehicle is that it presupposes that such a vehicle exists, and acts in a way that correlates with what you describe. If we had an extraterrestrial craft of any kind, we'd be able to compare sightings with what we knew of this craft's look and capabilities, the same way I can see an F-16 fighter in the sky and identify it as such because we possess knowledge of what an F-16 looks like. Identifying a UFO as a vehicle controlled by an extraterrestrial intelligence, however, is circular reasoning. You might as well say it's a god or goddess out on a nightly patrol.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
May I ask how you know that extraterrestrials exist and have the ability to break the laws of flight and physics as you understood them? Or to phrase it differently, how is your conclusion more sound than that of the Aztecs when they concluded the Spaniards were gods, or that of the old Norsemen when they figured thunder and lightning bolts had to be the work of a god with a "thunder hammer"?

The problem with identifying a UFO as an extraterrestrial vehicle is that it presupposes that such a vehicle exists, and acts in a way that correlates with what you describe. If we had an extraterrestrial craft of any kind, we'd be able to compare sightings with what we knew of this craft's look and capabilities, the same way I can see an F-16 fighter in the sky and identify it as such because we possess knowledge of what an F-16 looks like. Identifying a UFO as a vehicle controlled by an extraterrestrial intelligence, however, is circular reasoning. You might as well say it's a god or goddess out on a nightly patrol.
Click to expand...

First, I don't presuppose anything about the origin of what I saw.

My conclusion is merely that they were non-human craft. I reached that conclusion based on the maneuvers they performed, and that human pilots and human craft can't perform in that manner.
 
carlitos said:
Dude, ducks are non-human craft. Meteors are non-human craft. Really.
Click to expand...

Therein lies an observational rub: We never saw "craft"; we saw shapes. Shapes that moved rather quickly, that surprised us, and were out of site in short order.

Given the speed and nature of the sighting, I can't in good conscience refer to the objects as anything other than "unknown". That being said, the way in which one of the objects bobbed and weaved as it neared the horizon instantly reminded me of a duck.

What's more likely, then? That we saw an unknown vehicle, or misidentified low-flying birds in the dark?

As much as I'd like the explanation to be "cool super-advanced aircraft", the simplest explanation here is one of observational error.
 
King of the Americas said:
Indeed.

Neither of which are capable of making right angle turns, or combining with another like object to form a 4-fold larger version of the individual components...
Click to expand...

I make four right angle turns going to work in the morning.

So, tell me again, HOW you ruled out the usual ways our senses can be fooled?


ETA: And by "again" I mean "for the first time since you didn't answer previously."
 
Last edited:
RoboTimbo said:
I make four right angle turns going to work in the morning.
Click to expand...
And if you work in a cube farm, you might make a four-fold larger version of yourself when you get there. The original post KotA's assertion that he is a "knower" is silly, sorry.

  • Stars
  • Lightning
  • Birds
  • Ducks
  • Drugs / Alcohol?
  • You made a mistake?
  • You are a liar?
  • You are a fantasist?
  • PareidoliaWP
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom