• 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:
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.

The really funny thing is that 'I' know you are standing in a big puddle of ignorant wrongness, and you think you on some intellectual high ground, above reproach. Attempting to make fun of those who've seen things you have not is the very definition of "ignorance". CONGRATS! Do you want a banner or crown?

Initially I came here for an common explanation for my U.F.O. sighting. I stayed because I enjoy intellectual exchanges with those who, don't agree with me. I REPEAT, if I were looking for total agreement, I'd talk to myself.
Click to expand...
First of all, as I have pointed out before, I have seen things you have not, and other people have seen things neither of us have. What does that prove?

I never make fun of people who have seen things I haven't. I've never seen the Southern Cross, never seen Hong Kong harbor, never seen a panda or a koala or a grey whale or a platypus, but lots of people have and I would never make fun of them. I might make fun of people who take what they have seen and use it to come to wholly unwarrantable conclusions - or I might think those people were really sad, and not make fun of them for that reason.

I don't think I have made fun of you, although I have pointed out that when you make completely unfounded leaps of non-logic, and then stick to them in the face of logical, reasonable argument to the contrary, you might expect to be made fun of. If I have made fun of you I don't remember it, but así es la vida.

Second of all, you continue to insist on some form of "I don't understand it, therefore god/ET/noneoftheabove/alloftheabove/butcertainlynotaliens." This is a laughable position.

Third of all, 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."
 
Elizabeth I said:
First of all, as I have pointed out before, I have seen things you have not, and other people have seen things neither of us have. What does that prove?

I never make fun of people who have seen things I haven't. I've never seen the Southern Cross, never seen Hong Kong harbor, never seen a panda or a koala or a grey whale or a platypus, but lots of people have and I would never make fun of them. I might make fun of people who take what they have seen and use it to come to wholly unwarrantable conclusions - or I might think those people were really sad, and not make fun of them for that reason.

I don't think I have made fun of you, although I have pointed out that when you make completely unfounded leaps of non-logic, and then stick to them in the face of logical, reasonable argument to the contrary, you might expect to be made fun of. If I have made fun of you I don't remember it, but así es la vida.

Second of all, you continue to insist on some form of "I don't understand it, therefore god/ET/noneoftheabove/alloftheabove/butcertainlynotaliens." This is a laughable position.

Third of all, 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."
Click to expand...

I make fun of know-it-all bullies, that don't.

I make fun despotic ignorance.

But at the heart of it pity people like you.

Because, you cut yourself off from genuine realities, and in the end are proven out to be ignorantly behind the curve. Those who saw mermaids were made fun, but we now know they really saw "Manatees". The guy in the diving bell DID see glowing fish.

People claim to have seen "God". They didn't, they saw, and do still see simply a being not so much unlike us, that is more advanced, technologically speaking.

And your claim is what exactly, that no one saw anything? That they are misidentifying something common? That these U.F.O.'s are secret government craft? That ALL anecdotes are hallucinations, apparitions of a deluded mind?

The whole of our history, the world over, in every form of media imaginable, there is evidence of something intelligent, in our heavens...and 'you' think this is ALL pure fiction...???

I am sorry, but that is just ignorant, to me.
 
King of the Americas said:
You're new, so allow me to explain how wrong you are.

UFO's, are not 'necessarily' from another star...

From the beginning of our written history, 'they' appear in the skies. They could well be a form of advanced earthlings, ascended as it were. They don't have to be from anywhere distant, there are plenty of local hiding spots for them to hail from, our oceans perhaps.
Click to expand...

King of the Americas said:
THEY don't, any longer, live on this planet, making them "E.T.'s".

SURPRISE, they exist.
Click to expand...


So, we've abandoned the local hiding spots and our oceans theory, have we?
 
dafydd said:
They don't exist,no surprise.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of the phrase, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."?

How do you arrive at the conclusion that there is nothing out there, given how limited our access is...? Every time we explore 20 feet deep, we find new stuff. Who knows what we'll see for the first time, tomorrow.

With everything that has been presented to you, how do you arrive at "zero existence"...???
 
Psiload said:
And how does a 'possibility' differ from a possibility?
Click to expand...

So, are we debating the probability of an existence, or where that existence is likely located now?

From what I have seen I'd say the most likely scenario is that they were here, and now they are up there... WHERE that is, I don't know. My oceanic proposal is based solely on how little of the ocean bottom we've seen.
 
King of the Americas said:
I make fun of know-it-all bullies, that don't.

I make fun despotic ignorance.

But at the heart of it pity people like you.

Because, you cut yourself off from genuine realities, and in the end are proven out to be ignorantly behind the curve. Those who saw mermaids were made fun, but we now know they really saw "Manatees". The guy in the diving bell DID see glowing fish.

People claim to have seen "God". They didn't, they saw, and do still see simply a being not so much unlike us, that is more advanced, technologically speaking.

And your claim is what exactly, that no one saw anything? That they are misidentifying something common? That these U.F.O.'s are secret government craft? That ALL anecdotes are hallucinations, apparitions of a deluded mind?

The whole of our history, the world over, in every form of media imaginable, there is evidence of something intelligent, in our heavens...and 'you' think this is ALL pure fiction...???

I am sorry, but that is just ignorant, to me.
Click to expand...
Are you illiterate? I agreed that tons of people have seen things I haven't. That doesn't make what they saw somehow an existing anti-logical phenomenon (since I know you will object to "supernatural," "alien," etc.)

And all the things you describe actually exist. However, the fact is that early sailors didn't see merpeople, they saw manatees. The diver didn't see stars under the ocean or anything else non-logical, he saw opalescent or phosphorescent (whatever the mechanism that makes them glow is) fish.

The first explorers who talked about pandas were met with disbelief. But pandas didn't turn out to be some magical, long-lost bamboo-forest analog to the yeti; instead they are perfectly prosaic large bear-shaped animals with attractive markings who have managed to evolve to eat bamboo instead of the meat their ancestors probably consumed.

Likewise the first skeleton of a platypus seen outside Australia was assumed by many people to be a fake. But the platypus didn't turn out to be an elven creation, it turned out to be a perfectly prosaic, although unusual, small relic of the evolutionary process - and it has relatives in the animal world, the two species of echidna.

Lightning and thunder were believed to be communications from angry gods, but they turned out to be perfectly prosaic, easily explainable results of common natural processes.

Do you see a pattern here? People can - and do - come up with all sorts of explanations for things that they don't understand, but things that were described in supernatural or outlandish terms have so far always turned out to be completely prosaic, easily explainable products of natural processes.

So: are there unidentified lights in the sky? Are there other so-far-unexplained occurrences? Of course there are. But our experience tells us that they are most likely to turn out to have completely prosaic, easily explainable origins - not long-lost super-ancestors or guardians of the human race, or time travellers, or visitors from other parts of the universe, or anything but everyday phenomena, completely prosaic and easily explainable in terms of things we already know about: marsh gas, weather balloons, oddly-shaped clouds, airplanes, helicopters, oil well flares, on and on and on.

Sorry, that's the way the world is.

And all your posturing and chest-thumping and insults to people who understand this are not going to change reality.
 
Elizabeth I said:
... Are there other so-far-unexplained occurrences? Of course there are. ...

...
Click to expand...

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

When experienced pilots report *insert Rramjet example here*, that they saw something other worldly how do you arrive at "none existence"...?

What do you do with the sightings that have or aren't even close to being common things like lightening...?

I sincerely don't understand how you can ignore SO MUCH information contrary to your stance...
 
King of the Americas said:
Have you ever heard of the phrase, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."?

How do you arrive at the conclusion that there is nothing out there, given how limited our access is...? Every time we explore 20 feet deep, we find new stuff. Who knows what we'll see for the first time, tomorrow.

With everything that has been presented to you, how do you arrive at "zero existence"...???
Click to expand...

No proof. Your fantasies are not evidence.
 
King of the Americas said:
I make fun of know-it-all bullies, that don't.

I make fun despotic ignorance.

But at the heart of it pity people like you.

Because, you cut yourself off from genuine realities, and in the end are proven out to be ignorantly behind the curve. Those who saw mermaids were made fun, but we now know they really saw "Manatees". The guy in the diving bell DID see glowing fish.
<snipped more ignorant drivel>
Click to expand...
You know, this has been bugging me since you first brought it up, so I actually researched the history of discoveries related to bioluminescence. My bolding added.

http://www.isbc.unibo.it/Files/10_SE_BoStone.htm

The Discovery of Luminescence: "The Bolognian Stone" said:
The oldest known written observations on bioluminescent phenomena in nature were made in China, dating roughly from 1500 to 1000 B.C. regarding fireflies and glow-worms; however, no effort was directed at understanding and applying knowledge of such phenomena until the full flowering of alchemy in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries. By that time, the philosophical and intellectual groundwork that permitted a rational and materialistic approach to the study of natural phenomena had been laid and, in the spirit of times, this approach was applied to finding or making the Philosopher's Stone, that which would be capable of turning "ignoble metals" into gold.

Conditions were thus ripe for excitement when, in 1602, one Vincenzo Casciarolo, a cobbler by trade and dilettante alchemist, discovered the "Bolognian Phosphorus" on Monte Paderno just outside of Bologna. It was this natural stone, subsequently referred to also as the "Bolognian Stone" or "Litheophosphorus", that became the first object of scientific study of luminescent phenomena.
Click to expand...

Bioluminescence is observed in algae and other life-forms in shallow water, as many sailors throughout history have noticed. There was no guy in a diving bell who saw glowing fish and was mocked by scientists or whatever. This is just another anecdote that you made up, another example of your incuriosity about how the world works. You'd rather live in a fantasy land than actually understand how stuff works.

Your stories are crap and your thought process is flawed. Your willful ignorance doesn't merit the thoughtful responses you are receiving here, and your name-calling and condescension is disgraceful. I actually want to know how things work and I am learning many things here. You "pity" people like me. The membership agreement prevents me from saying what you deserve to hear. In your own words (with the misplaced ellipsis snipped) :

King of the Americas said:
I sincerely don't understand how you can ignore SO MUCH information contrary to your stance.
Click to expand...
 
King of the Americas said:
And when they demonstrate intelligence, and flight characteristics beyond the ability of our craft, then what...?

When experienced pilots report *insert Rramjet example here*, that they saw something other worldly how do you arrive at "none existence"...?

What do you do with the sightings that have or aren't even close to being common things like lightening...?

I sincerely don't understand how you can ignore SO MUCH information contrary to your stance...
Click to expand...

Experienced pilots describe all kinds of things. So do experienced all-kinds-of of-other-people. That is no reason to believe that ET (or whatever you are calling your whatevers now) is out there.

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.

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? I suppose it could be - anything is possible - but the odds are against you.

I sincerely don't understand how you can ignore SO MUCH information contrary to your stance.
 
King of the Americas said:
Have you ever heard of the phrase, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."?

How do you arrive at the conclusion that there is nothing out there, given how limited our access is...? Every time we explore 20 feet deep, we find new stuff. Who knows what we'll see for the first time, tomorrow.

With everything that has been presented to you, how do you arrive at "zero existence"...???
Click to expand...
If, however, you're going to argue "absence of evidence," then remember that absence of evidence also is not evidence of anything at all. You can't have it both ways!
 
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if there was a massive black hole between the Earth and the Moon, several interesting pieces of evidence would be available.
Are they available?
No.

So, absence of evidence may be evidence of absence.

Absence of evidence, at the very least, can put a big question mark on the claim. I wonder why Rramjet has not decided attack that maxim fron Sagan, instead the one related to extraordinary claims and evidence.

Now that you made that error, I am expecting you to follow the trend and make the next ones, claim that evidence is evidence and there's no such thing as extraordinary evidence.
 
I have decided that since there's no evidence at all of werewolves in Vermont, I will have to concede that we cannot discount the possibility that they exist. Since I would like to get a picture of a werewolf, I am planning to have a big party at which I and all my friends get drunk and howl at the moon in the hope that some will appear. No other attempt to attract werewolves has succeeded, so I've decided that this one has a good chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom