UFOs and ancient artwork

[Jocko]

Re: To Psiload:

If I SAW a fairy for 'myself', AND I saw video footage that I couldn't attribute to some kind of fakery or another phenomonia, AND I had countless historical images depicting these things as REAL,...then "Yes, I would believe in fairies". The difference in the two subjects are fold:

-One, I have NEVER seen a fairy myself
-Two, I have never seen video footage of them that I couldn't attribute to fakery
&
-Three, I have never heard of an artist painting fairies from a REAL entity. EVERY artist I have studied, portrayed these things a 'mythical'.

In other words, Psiload's word is worthless but yours is golden. Gotcha. What else could be expected from you? The only difference between the two examples is that you are predisposed to believe in aliens/gods/etc. and not similarly inclined to believe in fairies. Ironic, ain't it?

In other words, the standard of proof shifts based your your royal ass-ness's idea of what is true and what is not.

The KOA has seen lights; the KOA avows himself as a bastion of truth; therefore aliens/gods/etc. a barnstorming Texas.

Shakespeare wrote of faires; Shakespeare wrote historical plays; therefore, fairies are historical.

Why don't you stuck this Strawman Shi'ite up your pumpkin.

It is no strawman. It's an excellent example of your own double-standards, willful ignorance and childish temper.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Jocko:

You know you shouldn't be surprised to get butted and made a fool of, after your relentlous 'poking of the goat'.

Any arguments that focus on personal attacks and mischaracterizng another's argument are doomed to design failure, because they are wholly without merrit.

Again, I didn't see "a light", and I didn't characterize it as a spaceship.

I pity you, if you sincerely believe in your retorts.

 

[Psiload]

KIng of the Americas posted:

WROTE:

What 'I' have seen is evidence of our physical betters "aero-ly", but moreover, I've seen evidence of these same gifted heavenly being portrayed in EVERY form of Media mentionable, throughtout the Ages.

YOUR RESPONDED:

"So... it must be true 'cuz you read it in the paper/papyrus?"

*THEN I WROTE*

I didn't say it was true because it was written on one piece of paper, sometime in history.

And YOU responded:

"I never said you did. "

I think your double-talk, and circular reasoning has you trapped in a loop of ignorance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your words are as twisted as your logical, pretzel man.

You wrote:

I've seen evidence of these same gifted heavenly being portrayed in EVERY form of Media mentionable, throughtout the Ages.

and:

I didn't say it was true because it was written on one piece of paper, sometime in history.

See the twist? First it's "EVERY", and then it's "one". I never accused you of basing your conclusion on the interpretation of a single piece of historical evidence... that was your accusation, no? No double talk, no circular reasoning. I stand by my original denial... I never accused you of basing your conclusions on a single historical item.

*I don't recall using the term "spacecraft". By 'star-LIKE', I mean to characterzie them as "twinkling points of light".

But you clearly assumed they were piloted, did you not? It seems odd to me that a twinkling point of light would contain a pilot.

I think these 'gods of Heaven' ARE unidentifiable 'objects', and again I never used the term "spacecraft".

So you have indentified the unidentifiable? Is that sorta like dreaming the impossible dream?

If I SAW a fairy for 'myself', AND I saw video footage that I couldn't attribute to some kind of fakery or another phenomonia, AND I had countless historical images depicting these things as REAL,...then "Yes, I would believe in fairies". The difference in the two subjects are fold:

I haven't personally seen a "god of Heaven", and I don't accept their reality, and this makes me an "ignorant f*cker", yet you will not accept the reality of fairies until you have personally seen one... and this makes you...?

-One, I have NEVER seen a fairy myself

I have NEVER seen a "god of Heaven" for myself, and you criticize my skepticism. Why do you hold me to a different standard of evidence than you hold yourself?

Why don't you stuck this Strawman Shi'ite up your pumpkin.

Seasonally appropriate belligerence... how charming.

 

[c0rbin]

Don't be coy, KOA, this board is littered with your hopeful reports of alien dieties.

It is as moot a point as the invisible dragon in my garage.

 

[hgc]

I'm still awaiting evidence against my Madonna phone home hypothesis.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Psiload:

When you wrote:

"So... it must be true 'cuz you read it in the paper/papyrus?"

What do you mean?

---

You wrote:

I've seen evidence of these same gifted heavenly being portrayed in EVERY form of Media mentionable, throughtout the Ages.

and:

***I didn't*** say it was true because it was written on one piece of paper, sometime in history.

See the twist? First it's "EVERY", and then it's "one". I never accused you of basing your conclusion on the interpretation of a single piece of historical evidence... that was your accusation, no? No double talk, no circular reasoning. I stand by my original denial... I never accused you of basing your conclusions on a single historical item.

*Yes you DID.

But you clearly assumed they were piloted, did you not? It seems odd to me that a twinkling point of light would contain a pilot.

*NO, what I SAID was they "couldn't have been piloted by a terresterial pilot". That doesn't mean they WERE piloted by someone else, just that no Man of Earth was doing it.


So you have indentified the unidentifiable? Is that sorta like dreaming the impossible dream?

*No, that's like saying they are NOT anything that I could identify as being of a terresterial origin.


I haven't personally seen a "god of Heaven", and I don't accept their reality, and this makes me an "ignorant f*cker", yet you will not accept the reality of fairies until you have personally seen one... and this makes you...?

*If I saw video footage of a fairy that I couldn't attribute to some form of fakery, AND I had a mountain of historical evidence that siggested these WERE 'real entities'...I WOULD BE open to the possibility of YOU came to me and told me you saw such a thing, and that you had someone that would back up your story. With the first two pieces of evidencce I would be compelled to search for the latter

I have NEVER seen a "god of Heaven" for myself, and you criticize my skepticism. Why do you hold me to a different standard of evidence than you hold yourself?

*Since when are personal attacks and use of the Strawman Fallacy considered 'skepticism'?


Seasonally appropriate belligerence... how charming.

*I thought it was sitty.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Psiload:

When you wrote:

"So... it must be true 'cuz you read it in the paper/papyrus?"

What do you mean?

---

You wrote:

I've seen evidence of these same gifted heavenly being portrayed in EVERY form of Media mentionable, throughtout the Ages.

and:

***I didn't*** say it was true because it was written on one piece of paper, sometime in history.

See the twist? First it's "EVERY", and then it's "one". I never accused you of basing your conclusion on the interpretation of a single piece of historical evidence... that was your accusation, no? No double talk, no circular reasoning. I stand by my original denial... I never accused you of basing your conclusions on a single historical item.

*Yes you DID.

But you clearly assumed they were piloted, did you not? It seems odd to me that a twinkling point of light would contain a pilot.

*NO, what I SAID was they "couldn't have been piloted by a terresterial pilot". That doesn't mean they WERE piloted by someone else, just that no Man of Earth was doing it.


So you have indentified the unidentifiable? Is that sorta like dreaming the impossible dream?

*No, that's like saying they are NOT anything that I could identify as being of a terresterial origin.


I haven't personally seen a "god of Heaven", and I don't accept their reality, and this makes me an "ignorant f*cker", yet you will not accept the reality of fairies until you have personally seen one... and this makes you...?

*If I saw video footage of a fairy that I couldn't attribute to some form of fakery, AND I had a mountain of historical evidence that siggested these WERE 'real entities'...I WOULD BE open to the possibility of YOU came to me and told me you saw such a thing, and that you had someone that would back up your story. With the first two pieces of evidencce I would be compelled to search for the latter

I have NEVER seen a "god of Heaven" for myself, and you criticize my skepticism. Why do you hold me to a different standard of evidence than you hold yourself?

*Since when are personal attacks and use of the Strawman Fallacy considered 'skepticism'?


Seasonally appropriate belligerence... how charming.

*I thought it was witty.

 

[Tricky]

This "star-like lights" thing interests me. Okay, why would an alien space craft need lights? Their remote sensing technology must surely be very advanced, also, KOA never said they were shining the lights on the ground. Now we know why airplanes have lights. They need to see each other in the flight lanes. Why would alien starships need them though? Again, they should be able to communicate without them. Now it could be argued that the lights are due to some sort of rocket drive, but then we would also hear a loud sound. No sound was mentioned.

Now let us examine a good reason why aliens wouldn't have lights. Think real hard. Because they don't want to be seen. Duh. Now it is very obvious that aliens don't want to be seen, or they would have simply landed in a mall parking lot or something. This is a recurring conflict that no alien spacecraft believer has been able to solve. Why would they be simultaneously show-offs and recluses?

Another interesting thing is that another poster here (who is MIA) also believed he knew exactly what alien spacraft looked like and how they behaved. I've bumped that old thread so you can see his stories and how they differ from yours.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Tricky:

This "star-like lights" thing interests me. Okay, why would an alien space craft need lights?

*I wouldn't BEGIN to characterize the motives of someone/something that I didn't get to cross-examine.

Their remote sensing technology must surely be very advanced, also, KOA never said they were shining the lights on the ground.

*Indeed, the lights never shown down onto the ground, in a spot-light form.

Now we know why airplanes have lights. They need to see each other in the flight lanes. Why would alien starships need them though?

*What I witnessed could only be characterized as a 'super natural display' of abilities.

Again, they should be able to communicate without them. Now it could be argued that the lights are due to some sort of rocket drive, but then we would also hear a loud sound. No sound was mentioned.

*Indeed, there was no 'sound' associated with this phenomonia.

Now let us examine a good reason why aliens wouldn't have lights. Think real hard. Because they don't want to be seen. Duh.

*These entities made no effort to 'hide' themselves and did not retreat, upon my 'flashing my headlights' to acknowledge that 'I' or My Car was aware of them.

Now it is very obvious that aliens don't want to be seen, or they would have simply landed in a mall parking lot or something.

*I have never introduced MYSELF to the world via a mall parking lot, nor have I driven my car up to the White House to announce to the world that I exist, but that doesn't mean I don't still EXIST. INDIVIDUALS know I exist, but the planet doesn't. That 'I' know 'gods' exist and YOU don't isn't an argument.

This is a recurring conflict that no alien spacecraft believer has been able to solve. Why would they be simultaneously show-offs and recluses?

*I just don't know. Why would a killer wipe off EVERY finger print from a murder weapon, and then leave it to be found by the police?

Another interesting thing is that another poster here (who is MIA) also believed he knew exactly what alien spacraft looked like and how they behaved. I've bumped that old thread so you can see his stories and how they differ from yours.

*Again, I didn't charaterize these things as spacecraft, but rather unidentifiable flying objects that had supernatural characteristics and abilities.

 

[Psiload]

King of the Americas:

When you wrote:
"So... it must be true 'cuz you read it in the paper/papyrus?"
What do you mean?

I meant that just because something has been voluminously written about over the ages doesn't make it true. Only a fool would accept the gospels, as the gospel truth.

I had written:

I never accused you of basing your conclusions on a single historical item.

You wrote:

Yes you DID.

Please show me specifically where I made this accusation... feel free to cut, and paste my exact words.

NO, what I SAID was they "couldn't have been piloted by a terresterial pilot". That doesn't mean they WERE piloted by someone else, just that no Man of Earth was doing it.

But you also wrote the following:

Improbable...
...but NOT impossible, that we say E.T.'s piloted craft.

But you'd like to believe they were being piloted, no?

*No, that's like saying they are NOT anything that I could identify as being of a terresterial origin.

So, the only two choices you'll allow yourself are:

1- Things I can personally identify.

or

2- gods of Heaven.

You'll not entertain the notion that there could possibly be something between the two?

If I saw video footage of a fairy that I couldn't attribute to some form of fakery, AND I had a mountain of historical evidence that siggested these WERE 'real entities'...I WOULD BE open to the possibility of YOU came to me and told me you saw such a thing, and that you had someone that would back up your story. With the first two pieces of evidencce I would be compelled to search for the latter

You've changed your tune... first hand observation is no longer required. I see a foolish consistency taking place here.

As an aside... is there really such an animal, in this day and age, as video footage that COULDN'T be attributed to fakery? I defy you to observe the last Lord of the Rings movie, and point out the signs of fakery in the Battle of Helm's Deep siege scene. You know it's fake, because you know it is... not because you can tell it is.

Since when are personal attacks and use of the Strawman Fallacy considered 'skepticism'?

#1- For all the grasp you've got on what exactly constitutes a 'strawman fallacy', it may as well be the scarecrow man in my next door neighbor's Halloween decorations.

and

#2- Personal attacks? I'm not the one throwing around terms like "ignorant f*cker", and suggesting people stick certain objects up their pumpkins.

I thought it was sitty.

It sure was that!

 

[Tricky]

Re: To Tricky:

I wouldn't BEGIN to characterize the motives of someone/something that I didn't get to cross-examine.

Actually, you've been doing that all along. You called them "gods". This indicates you feel you have a great deal of inside knowledge about them.

What I witnessed could only be characterized as a 'super natural display' of abilities.

No, it could easily be characterized as a display that you don't understand. You are making the classic "argument out of personal incredulity."

These entities made no effort to 'hide' themselves and did not retreat, upon my 'flashing my headlights' to acknowledge that 'I' or My Car was aware of them.

But they didn't hang around for any sort definite identification, nor did they leave a scrap of solid evidence. This is exactly the sort of description people give of ghosts. Or leprechauns. Or ___________ (fill in the blank with your favorite paranormal being).

I have never introduced MYSELF to the world via a mall parking lot, nor have I driven my car up to the White House to announce to the world that I exist, but that doesn't mean I don't still EXIST

But you have introduced yourself to a number of people, no? You are not tantalizing people with visual displays and then disappearing before they can talk to you. If these UFOs make no attempt to avoid YOU, then it makes absolutely no sense that they go to such great lengths to avoid being discovered by others.

I just don't know. Why would a killer wipe off EVERY finger print from a murder weapon, and then leave it to be found by the police?

I imagine this has happened very rarely in the past, but I can see several reasons. They may think that if the police find the gun then they will be thrown off track. Also, they may wish to be caught, but want it to be sort of a game. Criminals are pretty twisted, but we know they exist. We have many well documented cases of criminals. This is in no way comparable with entities which manage to never leave a trace.

Again, I didn't charaterize these things as spacecraft, but rather unidentifiable flying objects that had supernatural characteristics and abilities.

But you have no evidence. None. This presumption on your part is simply because you think you are incapable of being mistaken about them.

By the way, I saw a UFO too. Really. It did things which were impossible by the laws of nature. Years later, I figured out what had happened. I had been fooled by a very natural phenomenon, but because I wanted to believe in UFOs, I would accept no other explanation. I eventually grew out of that stage.

 

[Starrman]

King of the Americas


Two quick questions:

1) What specific law of physics did the objects violate?

2) Do you know how far away or how large the objects were and, if so, how do you know this?

Thanks.

 

[Jocko]

Re: Re: To Tricky:

You are not tantalizing people with visual displays and then disappearing before they can talk to you.

Wait till tomorrow morning when he stomps off in a huff.

This is the gaudy display. TOMORROW is the disappearing part, and thereafter there shall be no mention of his temper-tantrum illogic. Until the next time he brings this crap up, of course.

 

[Jocko]

Two words, KOA.

Occam's razor.

Think about it.

 

[Jocko]

Re: To Jocko:

You know you shouldn't be surprised to get butted and made a fool of, after your relentlous 'poking of the goat'.

The only fool here is you, Knabe. And I would never poke a goat - it's cruel and inhumane. I reserve my "poking" for God's stupidest creatures. You're a good example.

Any arguments that focus on personal attacks and mischaracterizng another's argument are doomed to design failure, because they are wholly without merrit.

You argument has been characterized with complete accuracy by half a dozen posters, of which I am only one. Psiload's Fairy analogy is right on the money, but you're blind to that because.. .well, because you're a raving loony.

That's not a personal attack. It's a fact.

Personal attacks look like this:

'I' get what this Artist was trying to show us, it is sad that you don't...

I can't believe you don't 'get' Speilberg, either...

However, I WILL say this, your ignorance or refusal to accept my findings will NOT lead you to an increased understanding of these things.

Look, you ignorant f*cker...

You and your Strawman Fallical Reasoning can suck my cack.

Given your tendencies of mis-interpretation and mis-characterization...

I think your double-talk, and circular reasoning has you trapped in a loop of ignorance.

Why don't you stuck this Strawman Shi'ite up your pumpkin.

Funny, you demand the same double standard for courtesy that you demand for "proof" - you can do no wrong, can you? Why not just admit you were high in the desert and saw some lights in the sky?

Again, I didn't see "a light", and I didn't characterize it as a spaceship.

Backpedal, backpedal, backpedal:

By 'star-LIKE', I mean to characterzie them as "twinkling points of light".

I said it was true because I saw star-like OBJECTS(6), emitting a visible light...

What 'I' saw were star-like objects that moved with a constant velicoty while making right-angle turns.

Liar, liar, pants on fire. What is a "star-like object" EXCEPT a light? Caught again by your own words. It's amazing the psychological donuts your diseased brain can do in the parking lot of life. Round and round you go, never facing the same direction twice.

I pity you, if you sincerely believe in your retorts.

Save your pity, Knabe. I can't believe you seriously believe the crap you spew, lie about, revise and contort, all within an hour.