You are actually a fool.
Is it worth getting reported Reiku?
Considering 666 in Hebrew
Dude, Revelations is in the New Testament, which was written in Greek, and the oldest know fragments of that text, refer to the number being 616.
You are actually a fool.
Considering 666 in Hebrew
Is it worth getting reported Reiku?
Dude, Revelations is in the New Testament, which was written in Greek, and the oldest know fragments of that text, refer to the number being 616.
So wrong. The oldest fragments have 666 written three times in the Bible. 616 appears only once. Revelations is the newest book of the Bible.
Go figure.
I don't think these people are capable of handling an exopolitical reality beyond their own mundane realities—I mean, for crying out loud, they're still fighting amongst themselves to "prove" their mundanities!river said:to hide ones head in the sand only delays their reality , to you
have we not come around , in this day and age that UFO's are real
I mean for goodness sake people they are observed all over the world
to hide ones head in the sand only delays their reality , to you
What is real is that people observe stuff they can't identify - Big Whoop.
This is the dishonesty inherent in this topic, River says 'UFO' but means ETI, as if people mis-identifying the mundane makes the other hypothesis more likely. This is similar to the argument 'science doesn't know everything, which is why I believe in god',... two completely separate topics, joined in the minds of woowoos only.
have we not come around , in this day and age that UFO's are real
I mean for goodness sake people they are observed all over the world
to hide ones head in the sand only delays their reality , to you
But seeing something out of the mundane is... incredible, beautiful, even, but in the end it's just a sighting—of something. Nobody is proclaiming it as hard evidence except the skeptic putting the word in people's mouths and then hollering about woo woos while jumping up and down appearing to be one themselves!What is real is that people observe stuff they can't identify - Big Whoop. To believe that it is anything other than the mundane we would need some evidence. Some bozo (or pilot even) saying they saw something is not evidence, people are terrible eye witness observers. It is just that simple, give me something besides blurry photos and eye witness accounts.
This is the dishonesty inherent in this topic, River says 'UFO' but means ETI, as if people mis-identifying the mundane makes the other hypothesis more likely. This is similar to the argument 'science doesn't know everything, which is why I believe in god',... two completely separate topics, joined in the minds of woowoos only.
Huh? I said I need hard evidence, not eye-witness accounts and fuzzy pictures. No, dishonesty that I can detect.:shrug:
Huh? I said I need hard evidence, not eye-witness accounts and fuzzy pictures. No, dishonesty that I can detect.:shrug:
If that were all there were to it, not nearly as many people would be interested in the subject. The most compelling cases often involved RADAR and visual contact by multiple witnesses, and sometimes two or more RADAR systems.
I used to have a job where some colleagues tracked weather using RADAR, so RADAR signatures do not imply anything more prosaic than atmospheric conditions.
The irony is that the topic itself cannot be discussed here in peace, as if it were some bloody mortal sin. YET, the topic is nonetheless being discussed and explored worldwide. Snuffing it out from Sciforums really doesn't make much difference. But it would be interesting...One doesn't have to accept the most exotic claims in order to recognize that there is a credible mystery. Is it the position of our debunkers that any unexplained claim must either be ET, or nothing? Or can you imagine that there could be something else going on beyond completely mundane sightings?
The irony is that the topic itself cannot be discussed here in peace, as if it were some bloody mortal sin. YET, the topic is nonetheless being discussed and explored worldwide. Snuffing it out from Sciforums really doesn't make much difference. But it would be interesting...
Granted, there is no evidence, no scientific proof, but that doesn't stop the forum from discussing God.
Personally, I won't put my acumen and curiosity on hold over this while waiting for the likes of a scientific community to pick fleas out of their hair. I can still muse over particulars, conjecture the unfathomable, carefully view the enigma from different perspectives—Phlogistician's sternness notwithstanding.