Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Alien abductions.

PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2011 4:16:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/11/2011 3:43:44 PM, GodSands wrote:
One testimony. Watch the video and discuss.:

Whatever.

Why is this in the education forum?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2011 4:17:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/11/2011 4:16:25 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 1/11/2011 3:43:44 PM, GodSands wrote:
One testimony. Watch the video and discuss.:

Whatever.

Why is this in the education forum?

we must be educated about how stupid people are this way you don't go through life believing everyone as intelligent as you are.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2011 4:21:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/11/2011 4:17:53 PM, askbob wrote:
At 1/11/2011 4:16:25 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 1/11/2011 3:43:44 PM, GodSands wrote:
One testimony. Watch the video and discuss.:

Whatever.

Why is this in the education forum?

we must be educated about how stupid people are this way you don't go through life believing everyone as intelligent as you are.:

In that case, I have no objections!
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2011 4:40:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
: At 1/11/2011 4:16:25 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 1/11/2011 3:43:44 PM, GodSands wrote:
One testimony. Watch the video and discuss.:

Whatever.

Why is this in the education forum?


Oh my goodness, you atheists are so annoying at times. Aren't you guys meant to be the ones who rationally think these things through and come to sensible conclusions. Aurrhh!
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2011 4:47:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/11/2011 4:44:02 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If it's firsthand testimony, it's circumstantial evidence. If it's secondhand or worse, it's pure hearsay. Neither one makes a solid prima facie case.

I mean, testimony can be direct evidence, but in cases like this, it's basically on par with circumstantial evidence since it's the sole bit of proof we can use to determine the factual accuracy of the testimony. Essentially, the testimony's proof is self-referential. :P
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2011 4:50:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
: At 1/11/2011 4:47:42 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/11/2011 4:44:02 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If it's firsthand testimony, it's circumstantial evidence. If it's secondhand or worse, it's pure hearsay. Neither one makes a solid prima facie case.

I mean, testimony can be direct evidence, but in cases like this, it's basically on par with circumstantial evidence since it's the sole bit of proof we can use to determine the factual accuracy of the testimony. Essentially, the testimony's proof is self-referential. :P


None of that means anything unless you give examples, illustrations etc...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2011 4:53:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/11/2011 4:50:10 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 1/11/2011 4:47:42 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/11/2011 4:44:02 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If it's firsthand testimony, it's circumstantial evidence. If it's secondhand or worse, it's pure hearsay. Neither one makes a solid prima facie case.

I mean, testimony can be direct evidence, but in cases like this, it's basically on par with circumstantial evidence since it's the sole bit of proof we can use to determine the factual accuracy of the testimony. Essentially, the testimony's proof is self-referential. :P


None of that means anything unless you give examples, illustrations etc...

Actually, it means plenty. I assume that, as in the philosophy thread, you don't have the cognitive capacity necessary to comprehend it. I mean, what the hell kind of example or illustrations do you want? The whole point was to explain to you why the evidence was bad, and, all else equal, unreliable without corroborating evidence.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2011 4:55:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/11/2011 4:50:10 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 1/11/2011 4:47:42 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/11/2011 4:44:02 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If it's firsthand testimony, it's circumstantial evidence. If it's secondhand or worse, it's pure hearsay. Neither one makes a solid prima facie case.

I mean, testimony can be direct evidence, but in cases like this, it's basically on par with circumstantial evidence since it's the sole bit of proof we can use to determine the factual accuracy of the testimony. Essentially, the testimony's proof is self-referential. :P


None of that means anything unless you give examples, illustrations etc...

9-11, attack on the pentagon. Witnesses reported the attack as a missile, a car bomb, a 12 seater plane, a four seater plane and a boeing.

One persons personal account is worthless.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2011 5:00:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
: At 1/11/2011 4:53:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/11/2011 4:50:10 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 1/11/2011 4:47:42 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/11/2011 4:44:02 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If it's firsthand testimony, it's circumstantial evidence. If it's secondhand or worse, it's pure hearsay. Neither one makes a solid prima facie case.

I mean, testimony can be direct evidence, but in cases like this, it's basically on par with circumstantial evidence since it's the sole bit of proof we can use to determine the factual accuracy of the testimony. Essentially, the testimony's proof is self-referential. :P


None of that means anything unless you give examples, illustrations etc...

Actually, it means plenty. I assume that, as in the philosophy thread, you don't have the cognitive capacity necessary to comprehend it. I mean, what the hell kind of example or illustrations do you want? The whole point was to explain to you why the evidence was bad, and, all else equal, unreliable without corroborating evidence.


Why are you even mentioning evidence, clearly (if you have watched the video) you will know that the guy woke up with stitches in his leg, he went to the doctor, and he didn't know what happened. I believe he was abducted, what the hell do you think happened to him?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2011 5:02:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/11/2011 5:00:47 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 1/11/2011 4:53:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/11/2011 4:50:10 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 1/11/2011 4:47:42 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/11/2011 4:44:02 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If it's firsthand testimony, it's circumstantial evidence. If it's secondhand or worse, it's pure hearsay. Neither one makes a solid prima facie case.

I mean, testimony can be direct evidence, but in cases like this, it's basically on par with circumstantial evidence since it's the sole bit of proof we can use to determine the factual accuracy of the testimony. Essentially, the testimony's proof is self-referential. :P


None of that means anything unless you give examples, illustrations etc...

Actually, it means plenty. I assume that, as in the philosophy thread, you don't have the cognitive capacity necessary to comprehend it. I mean, what the hell kind of example or illustrations do you want? The whole point was to explain to you why the evidence was bad, and, all else equal, unreliable without corroborating evidence.


Why are you even mentioning evidence, clearly (if you have watched the video) you will know that the guy woke up with stitches in his leg, he went to the doctor, and he didn't know what happened. I believe he was abducted, what the hell do you think happened to him?

I can think of numerous explanations all more likely than alien abduction.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2011 5:06:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/11/2011 5:02:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/11/2011 5:00:47 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 1/11/2011 4:53:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/11/2011 4:50:10 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 1/11/2011 4:47:42 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/11/2011 4:44:02 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If it's firsthand testimony, it's circumstantial evidence. If it's secondhand or worse, it's pure hearsay. Neither one makes a solid prima facie case.

I mean, testimony can be direct evidence, but in cases like this, it's basically on par with circumstantial evidence since it's the sole bit of proof we can use to determine the factual accuracy of the testimony. Essentially, the testimony's proof is self-referential. :P


None of that means anything unless you give examples, illustrations etc...

Actually, it means plenty. I assume that, as in the philosophy thread, you don't have the cognitive capacity necessary to comprehend it. I mean, what the hell kind of example or illustrations do you want? The whole point was to explain to you why the evidence was bad, and, all else equal, unreliable without corroborating evidence.


Why are you even mentioning evidence, clearly (if you have watched the video) you will know that the guy woke up with stitches in his leg, he went to the doctor, and he didn't know what happened. I believe he was abducted, what the hell do you think happened to him?

I can think of numerous explanations all more likely than alien abduction.

Then name some.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2011 5:07:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/11/2011 5:00:47 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 1/11/2011 4:53:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/11/2011 4:50:10 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 1/11/2011 4:47:42 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/11/2011 4:44:02 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If it's firsthand testimony, it's circumstantial evidence. If it's secondhand or worse, it's pure hearsay. Neither one makes a solid prima facie case.

I mean, testimony can be direct evidence, but in cases like this, it's basically on par with circumstantial evidence since it's the sole bit of proof we can use to determine the factual accuracy of the testimony. Essentially, the testimony's proof is self-referential. :P


None of that means anything unless you give examples, illustrations etc...

Actually, it means plenty. I assume that, as in the philosophy thread, you don't have the cognitive capacity necessary to comprehend it. I mean, what the hell kind of example or illustrations do you want? The whole point was to explain to you why the evidence was bad, and, all else equal, unreliable without corroborating evidence.


Why are you even mentioning evidence, clearly (if you have watched the video) you will know that the guy woke up with stitches in his leg, he went to the doctor, and he didn't know what happened. I believe he was abducted, what the hell do you think happened to him?

I have no idea what happened; however, a lack of knowledge does not mean that any explanation is acceptable. It's like the theists who say "Atheists don't know exactly how the universe came into existence; therefore, God did it!"--clearly a non sequitur. Plus, as an aside--if there are aliens advanced and intelligent enough to achieve hyperspace travel, abduction, and a total memory wipe, I would imagine that they're more than advanced enough to not use f*cking stitches.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2011 5:07:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
: At 1/11/2011 5:02:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/11/2011 5:00:47 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 1/11/2011 4:53:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/11/2011 4:50:10 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 1/11/2011 4:47:42 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/11/2011 4:44:02 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If it's firsthand testimony, it's circumstantial evidence. If it's secondhand or worse, it's pure hearsay. Neither one makes a solid prima facie case.

I mean, testimony can be direct evidence, but in cases like this, it's basically on par with circumstantial evidence since it's the sole bit of proof we can use to determine the factual accuracy of the testimony. Essentially, the testimony's proof is self-referential. :P


None of that means anything unless you give examples, illustrations etc...

Actually, it means plenty. I assume that, as in the philosophy thread, you don't have the cognitive capacity necessary to comprehend it. I mean, what the hell kind of example or illustrations do you want? The whole point was to explain to you why the evidence was bad, and, all else equal, unreliable without corroborating evidence.


Why are you even mentioning evidence, clearly (if you have watched the video) you will know that the guy woke up with stitches in his leg, he went to the doctor, and he didn't know what happened. I believe he was abducted, what the hell do you think happened to him?

I can think of numerous explanations all more likely than alien abduction.


And they are...?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2011 5:10:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Oh my goodness, you atheists are so annoying at times.:

I'm not an atheist.

Aren't you guys meant to be the ones who rationally think these things through and come to sensible conclusions. Aurrhh!:

Yeah, which is why I don't just take extraordinary claims at face value. Evidence goes a long way

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go feed my Yeti and Chupacabre.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2011 5:12:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
: At 1/11/2011 5:07:21 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/11/2011 5:00:47 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 1/11/2011 4:53:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/11/2011 4:50:10 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 1/11/2011 4:47:42 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/11/2011 4:44:02 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If it's firsthand testimony, it's circumstantial evidence. If it's secondhand or worse, it's pure hearsay. Neither one makes a solid prima facie case.

I mean, testimony can be direct evidence, but in cases like this, it's basically on par with circumstantial evidence since it's the sole bit of proof we can use to determine the factual accuracy of the testimony. Essentially, the testimony's proof is self-referential. :P


None of that means anything unless you give examples, illustrations etc...

Actually, it means plenty. I assume that, as in the philosophy thread, you don't have the cognitive capacity necessary to comprehend it. I mean, what the hell kind of example or illustrations do you want? The whole point was to explain to you why the evidence was bad, and, all else equal, unreliable without corroborating evidence.


Why are you even mentioning evidence, clearly (if you have watched the video) you will know that the guy woke up with stitches in his leg, he went to the doctor, and he didn't know what happened. I believe he was abducted, what the hell do you think happened to him?

I have no idea what happened; however, a lack of knowledge does not mean that any explanation is acceptable. It's like the theists who say "Atheists don't know exactly how the universe came into existence; therefore, God did it!"--clearly a non sequitur. Plus, as an aside--if there are aliens advanced and intelligent enough to achieve hyperspace travel, abduction, and a total memory wipe, I would imagine that they're more than advanced enough to not use f*cking stitches.


What I got from that was, "It couldn't have been an alien abduction because aliens wouldn't use stitches."

Stitches could come in various forms, lazor, thread, or others which we have not heard of.

Your equilient use for God is chance. Good job. Chance did it, or time did it.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2011 5:13:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/11/2011 4:55:12 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/11/2011 4:50:10 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 1/11/2011 4:47:42 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/11/2011 4:44:02 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If it's firsthand testimony, it's circumstantial evidence. If it's secondhand or worse, it's pure hearsay. Neither one makes a solid prima facie case.

I mean, testimony can be direct evidence, but in cases like this, it's basically on par with circumstantial evidence since it's the sole bit of proof we can use to determine the factual accuracy of the testimony. Essentially, the testimony's proof is self-referential. :P


None of that means anything unless you give examples, illustrations etc...

9-11, attack on the pentagon. Witnesses reported the attack as a missile, a car bomb, a 12 seater plane, a four seater plane and a boeing.

One persons personal account is worthless.:

Yeah, especially since we know 9/11 was caused by aliens and angels who worked for Mossad and the CIA. Duh!!! ;)
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2011 5:13:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/11/2011 5:06:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/11/2011 5:02:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/11/2011 5:00:47 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 1/11/2011 4:53:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/11/2011 4:50:10 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 1/11/2011 4:47:42 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/11/2011 4:44:02 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If it's firsthand testimony, it's circumstantial evidence. If it's secondhand or worse, it's pure hearsay. Neither one makes a solid prima facie case.

I mean, testimony can be direct evidence, but in cases like this, it's basically on par with circumstantial evidence since it's the sole bit of proof we can use to determine the factual accuracy of the testimony. Essentially, the testimony's proof is self-referential. :P


None of that means anything unless you give examples, illustrations etc...

Actually, it means plenty. I assume that, as in the philosophy thread, you don't have the cognitive capacity necessary to comprehend it. I mean, what the hell kind of example or illustrations do you want? The whole point was to explain to you why the evidence was bad, and, all else equal, unreliable without corroborating evidence.


Why are you even mentioning evidence, clearly (if you have watched the video) you will know that the guy woke up with stitches in his leg, he went to the doctor, and he didn't know what happened. I believe he was abducted, what the hell do you think happened to him?

I can think of numerous explanations all more likely than alien abduction.

Then name some.

The guy, or a friend of his has medical training and stitched his leg and invented the story.
The guy, or a friend of his has medical training and stitched his leg whilst he was drunk.
The story is pure fiction, no stitching no confused doctor.
The guy had an operation, his doctor was not involved and is not psychic.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2011 5:23:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why are you even mentioning evidence, clearly (if you have watched the video) you will know that the guy woke up with stitches in his leg, he went to the doctor, and he didn't know what happened.:

So he says! Jesus f*cking Christ, do you purposefully find the most extraordinary tales to believe in?

I believe he was abducted, what the hell do you think happened to him?:

Not enough information. I'm not saying he is lying, I'm not saying he's delusional, I'm simply saying there is not enough information to make an informed decision. It's an assertion he's making, and will remain so until a reasonable amount of evidence can be given.

By the way, I was raped by a pack of Yeti this afternoon and have 14 stitches on my @ss to prove that rogue Yeti caused it. You believe me because I said so, right?

FAIL.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2011 5:27:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Nothing is more annoying than people equating UFOs with aliens.

a UFO is an UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT. It can be ANYTHING. The key is that it is unidentified, meaning, we don't know what it is.

Either way, to get back on topic... If this guy wants to be taken seriously at all, he needs this object removed from his body and examined. That is, if there is even an object there.. I think he's full of it.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2011 5:43:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago

The guy, or a friend of his has medical training and stitched his leg and invented the story.
The guy, or a friend of his has medical training and stitched his leg whilst he was drunk.
The story is pure fiction, no stitching no confused doctor.
The guy had an operation, his doctor was not involved and is not psychic.


Those stories can be true for anything abnormal.

A true story, happened to me, I came back from a weekend away where I stayed at an American air base. It was a Sunday night and I was given a poster by a Christian rap artist, he signed it and I took it home. That same night I took down a current post card of an alien, I exchanged it for the poster which was given to me. Previously, before I removed the post card I had strange experiences during my sleep, one was where I woke up in the night with my head where my feet were meant to be, I was conscious and alert, during that time I heard a horrific scream come from my mother room, I shortly fell back to sleep. Waking up in my normal position.

Another time, while the post card was one my wall, was when I felt like I was launched upwards, and while so, I heard two evil sounding screams one after the other.

The third experience was when I removed the post card and went to bed, I woke up in the night, unable to move etc... Apart from the eyes of course just like what people would call a sleep paralysis. To the left of my I distinctly saw a figure which stood at around 4 to 5ft, large bulbous head. I also sensed a evil presents within my room. When I was able to move again, I turned so that I faced my wall, away from the figure. I didn't want to look and see if it was still there or not, because frankly I just wanted it to leave. Anyway the weird thing is, since I have taken down that post card, nothing has happened since, and even more oddly, I so happen to have that experience the night I removed the post card of the ALIEN!!! I can't think of an other rational explanation other than my own.

Since then, I have only had one other strange experience, a few months ago I was at my computer desk listening to some sort of alien pod cast, as I was tired I nodded off at the desk with the pod cast still playing.

I went to sleep as normal that night, and just like the post card, I didn't think there was anything significant with me nodding off and what have you. Nothing crossed my mind that me nodding off would cause something to abnormally occur in my sleep. Anyway I had an odd and very vivid dream of my hanging around at the computer desk, I dreamt that I looked into my sitting room mirror and that I could see myself (which in dreams you cannot apparently do). I remember then walking towards my door which leads to the stair way, as I was, I attempted to speak the word 'Jesus' but found that I couldn't, just like when you cannot move in a 'sleep paralysis'. I suddenly awoke in a unpleasent manner, in shock and horror, I never in my life appreciated the word 'Jesus' as much as I did at that moment as once I woke, I felt so smoothed just to say, Jesus.

Well they are my experiences.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2011 5:46:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/11/2011 5:27:44 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Nothing is more annoying than people equating UFOs with aliens.

a UFO is an UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT. It can be ANYTHING. The key is that it is unidentified, meaning, we don't know what it is.

The acronym has taken a meaning of it's own. UFO means alien spacecraft. Deal with it. Btw, taking it's literal meaning, why is it Unidentified? Because it's not from Earth. And if it's not from here, it's extraterrestrial by definition. We usually know what things are if they're from earth, but if it's from an extraterrestrial source, it's unidentified.

And if there's an object in the sky and it can't be identified, but it's actually a plane, then it's not a UFO because we CAN identify it, we just haven't yet because it's too far out of sight.

A true UFO would have to be an alien space craft because even after getting a clear look, we still can't identify it.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2011 5:52:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/11/2011 5:46:39 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/11/2011 5:27:44 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Nothing is more annoying than people equating UFOs with aliens.

a UFO is an UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT. It can be ANYTHING. The key is that it is unidentified, meaning, we don't know what it is.

The acronym has taken a meaning of it's own. UFO means alien spacecraft. Deal with it. Btw, taking it's literal meaning, why is it Unidentified? Because it's not from Earth. And if it's not from here, it's extraterrestrial by definition. We usually know what things are if they're from earth, but if it's from an extraterrestrial source, it's unidentified.

And if there's an object in the sky and it can't be identified, but it's actually a plane, then it's not a UFO because we CAN identify it, we just haven't yet because it's too far out of sight.

A true UFO would have to be an alien space craft because even after getting a clear look, we still can't identify it.

unidentified =/= unidentifiable
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2011 6:03:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I can't think of an other rational explanation other than my own.:

Just increase your dosage. Problem solved!

In all seriousness, somewhere on the Atlantic (roughly 12 miles off the coast of the Carolina's, if my memory serves me correctly), I was taking down a flag because it was nighttime. As I'm getting ready to put the flag away, I see a yellowish orb in the sky (looked like it was a few miles away, but you lose spacial awareness when there are no objects around it to. Could've been a large object 30 miles away. Who knows). This orb was moving very fast and was seemingly defying physics. No plane known to mankind could pull G's that severely without it's pilots imploding. Not even the nimblest flying creature on earth could have performed this. I watched this amazing sight for about 6-8 seconds before it disappeared.

This event transpired about a month and a half ago while I was underway.

Now, what did I see? Well, I saw an unidentified flying object -- that is, I saw an object that was flying, and I couldn't identify it. Inconveniently, I was the only one who saw it (of course, just my luck!).

Now, because I couldn't explain it, does that therefore mean that I witnessed ultra-intelligent, extra-terrestrials flying around? No. Is that within the realm of possibility? Sure, just about anything is possible.

Why did I tell that story? Well, I witnessed something that most people would equate with aliens, and yet I'm not jumping to conclusions. Was it amazing? Yes. Was it something I could rationally explain at that point in time? No.

The point is, I don't know what I saw, and I couldn't even begin to speculate... So I won't.

Understand?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2011 6:08:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
: At 1/11/2011 6:03:11 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I can't think of an other rational explanation other than my own.:

Just increase your dosage. Problem solved!

In all seriousness, somewhere on the Atlantic (roughly 12 miles off the coast of the Carolina's, if my memory serves me correctly), I was taking down a flag because it was nighttime. As I'm getting ready to put the flag away, I see a yellowish orb in the sky (looked like it was a few miles away, but you lose spacial awareness when there are no objects around it to. Could've been a large object 30 miles away. Who knows). This orb was moving very fast and was seemingly defying physics. No plane known to mankind could pull G's that severely without it's pilots imploding. Not even the nimblest flying creature on earth could have performed this. I watched this amazing sight for about 6-8 seconds before it disappeared.

This event transpired about a month and a half ago while I was underway.

Now, what did I see? Well, I saw an unidentified flying object -- that is, I saw an object that was flying, and I couldn't identify it. Inconveniently, I was the only one who saw it (of course, just my luck!).

Now, because I couldn't explain it, does that therefore mean that I witnessed ultra-intelligent, extra-terrestrials flying around? No. Is that within the realm of possibility? Sure, just about anything is possible.

Why did I tell that story? Well, I witnessed something that most people would equate with aliens, and yet I'm not jumping to conclusions. Was it amazing? Yes. Was it something I could rationally explain at that point in time? No.

The point is, I don't know what I saw, and I couldn't even begin to speculate... So I won't.

Understand?


Did that actually happen, or were you making that up? Anyhow I don't believe these beings which you dimiss are aliens from far off planets, in fact I believe they are demonic being, who are making their return. It's all apart of the great deception mentioned in the Bible. I won't go into it now, if your interested, look it up.
gizmo1650
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2011 6:50:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/11/2011 6:08:43 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 1/11/2011 6:03:11 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I can't think of an other rational explanation other than my own.:

Just increase your dosage. Problem solved!

In all seriousness, somewhere on the Atlantic (roughly 12 miles off the coast of the Carolina's, if my memory serves me correctly), I was taking down a flag because it was nighttime. As I'm getting ready to put the flag away, I see a yellowish orb in the sky (looked like it was a few miles away, but you lose spacial awareness when there are no objects around it to. Could've been a large object 30 miles away. Who knows). This orb was moving very fast and was seemingly defying physics. No plane known to mankind could pull G's that severely without it's pilots imploding. Not even the nimblest flying creature on earth could have performed this. I watched this amazing sight for about 6-8 seconds before it disappeared.

This event transpired about a month and a half ago while I was underway.

Now, what did I see? Well, I saw an unidentified flying object -- that is, I saw an object that was flying, and I couldn't identify it. Inconveniently, I was the only one who saw it (of course, just my luck!).

Now, because I couldn't explain it, does that therefore mean that I witnessed ultra-intelligent, extra-terrestrials flying around? No. Is that within the realm of possibility? Sure, just about anything is possible.

Why did I tell that story? Well, I witnessed something that most people would equate with aliens, and yet I'm not jumping to conclusions. Was it amazing? Yes. Was it something I could rationally explain at that point in time? No.

The point is, I don't know what I saw, and I couldn't even begin to speculate... So I won't.

Understand?


Did that actually happen, or were you making that up? Anyhow I don't believe these beings which you dimiss are aliens from far off planets, in fact I believe they are demonic being, who are making their return. It's all apart of the great deception mentioned in the Bible. I won't go into it now, if your interested, look it up.

I completely agree with your rejection to that being caused by aliens, and your reasoning. However, why is that argument invalid for other testimonies, or demonic beings.