 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:48:25 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Which is certainly true. But, the counter argument is that the guy that
> stays on the plane, because he is sure that angels are carrying the
> wings, will stay on the plane, while the guy that thinks they "zapped"
> everyone, including the plane with an "anti-gravity ray", might just be
> dumb enough to open the door and jump out. There may be no functional
> difference between the two, but one has a bloody lot higher odds of
> being right, or surviving, even if its by accident. lol
I'm not sure what this is in reference to from what I wrote.....?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/26/2011 11:45 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> yeah, you know every possible outcome and you know everything there is
> to it and for a fact you can demonstrate there can't be anything else,
> sure... your opinion hardly could be more biased, but OK, I see now how
> difficult is to reason when the people don't want to and find some
> intellectual pretext to not do so. But is your opinion and I respect it.
Where is the evidence that aliens are a plausible explanation, at all.
We don't even know if "alien" is a coherent definition, or just a
anthropomorphic projection of the original meaning of "outsider" to some
non-existent thing from another planet. We simply don't know. The answer
to, "What is it?", is either, "something known", or "I don't know".
Unless you already have real, clear, evidence that space aliens are
real, or any of the other myriad supposed things they "might be", as
suggested by such UFOlogists, its no more a coherent, never mind
plausible, explanation than that its time travelers, ghosts, holograms,
pixies, or magic tea pots.
I don't have a damn clue, any more than they do, what the hell they are.
But I do bloody well know that I **don't** have a clue, and that there
is, therefor, no reason to pull some random science fiction term, from
Orwell and the like, out of my butt, and say, "I think this is a
reasonable thing for it to be." By that definition of "reasonable"
demons, ghosts, Ayakashi would have made just as much sense, a few
hundred years ago. And, there where lots of *examples* of prints,
mysterious burn marks, strange and spooking feelings, and people
claiming to have personally *seen* those things, at the time too, even
including, "artifacts", in some cases, "owned by them", which,
"disappeared", but where of, "unearthly origin", according to the people
that handled them.
I am not telling you what I know these things are. I am telling you why
its absurd to assume, just because a lot of people currently think its a
space ship, instead of a sky dragon, and find that more "scientific",
with no more evidence than was once used to *prove* the sky dragon, that
those people have any better idea what they are dealing with, or a more
plausible answer, without clear evidence, than a 10th century peasant,
who thought it was spirits, or a 15th century Japanese priest, who
thought he saw a demon lord menacing his village.
Having a more modern, "We haven't a damn clue, but this sounds good!",
version doesn't make it, or the witnesses, or the explanations, or the
vague and inconclusive "evidence" that you see with UFOs any more
reasonable.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/27/2011 10:17 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:27:56 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Otherwise sane people, with jobs, claim they *know* that the government
>> is intentionally producing "chemtrails", on the basis of finding
>> Aluminum in water (the single most common element on the damn planet,
>> along side Silicon). Just saying...
>
> No, no, no, we all know it's because they've fluoridated the water. ;)
>
> Jim
Oh god, maybe they are doing both!!! lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/27/2011 10:18 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:48:25 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Which is certainly true. But, the counter argument is that the guy that
>> stays on the plane, because he is sure that angels are carrying the
>> wings, will stay on the plane, while the guy that thinks they "zapped"
>> everyone, including the plane with an "anti-gravity ray", might just be
>> dumb enough to open the door and jump out. There may be no functional
>> difference between the two, but one has a bloody lot higher odds of
>> being right, or surviving, even if its by accident. lol
>
> I'm not sure what this is in reference to from what I wrote.....?
>
> Jim
Just saying, indirectly, that being right, for the wrong reasons, i.e.
belief in it, rather than knowing the facts, isn't *that* huge of a
problem, for the believer. They may be doing the right thing, for the
wrong reason, but they don't "step off the plane, in mid-flight", unlike
the twit that "believes" the exact opposite (such as believing that
climate is fake).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcable com> wrote:
> On 10/26/2011 11:45 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
....
>
> Having a more modern, "We haven't a damn clue, but this sounds good!",
> version doesn't make it, or the witnesses, or the explanations, or the
> vague and inconclusive "evidence" that you see with UFOs any more
> reasonable.
Do not scoff. UFOs ARE REAL AND MOVE AMONGST US.
I have proof. Indisputable simulated photographic evidence exists which
confirms that UFOs (the Uncultured Financially Obsessed) not only walk
unchallenged among the human population, but also control each and every one of
the shadowy clandestine societies that secretly run the world, including the
Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission and the British Dental Association.
to the site.
,sdrager tseB
Mike the Elder
for a while and might actually get to it if another person or two would like to
join in the fun.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 22:36:13 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Just saying, indirectly, that being right, for the wrong reasons, i.e.
> belief in it, rather than knowing the facts, isn't *that* huge of a
> problem, for the believer. They may be doing the right thing, for the
> wrong reason, but they don't "step off the plane, in mid-flight", unlike
> the twit that "believes" the exact opposite (such as believing that
> climate is fake).
OIC. The problem is that being right for the wrong reasons reinforces
superstitious beliefs and other cognitive errors.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
either way, they could be either denying or acknowledging that
unidentified flying objects were alien tech indeed. From Russia.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/28/2011 8:25 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 22:36:13 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Just saying, indirectly, that being right, for the wrong reasons, i.e.
>> belief in it, rather than knowing the facts, isn't *that* huge of a
>> problem, for the believer. They may be doing the right thing, for the
>> wrong reason, but they don't "step off the plane, in mid-flight", unlike
>> the twit that "believes" the exact opposite (such as believing that
>> climate is fake).
>
> OIC. The problem is that being right for the wrong reasons reinforces
> superstitious beliefs and other cognitive errors.
>
> Jim
Yeah. But, if your the guy trying to fix something, you can at least
work with it. lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/10/2011 3:09 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/27/2011 10:16, Stephen wrote:
>> On 27/10/2011 5:43 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> It's complete bunk.
>>
>> So, say you. Earthling!
>
> Say-a what you-a will, Monkey boy!
>
So insults we trade, corporeal being.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 28/10/2011 3:09 AM, Darren New wrote:
> > On 10/27/2011 10:16, Stephen wrote:
> >> On 27/10/2011 5:43 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> >>> It's complete bunk.
> >>
> >> So, say you. Earthling!
> >
> > Say-a what you-a will, Monkey boy!
> >
> So insults we trade, corporeal being.
Don't worry. When the New World Order is established by the One World
Government under the supervision of the reptilians, all such disagreements
will become obsolete.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
