I have noticed a definite abscence of anyone really supporting either of our positions. Even the erzatz scientists found here.
Certainly theories are discussed in scientific journals. But not only. I think you know that. I think you are bright enough to know that thousands of hard, very hard, tangible facts are presented in scientific journals every year.
And they remain theories until proofs, tests, and reproducible results are offered.
And I think you know that the journal articles I ref'd presented just the sorts of hard facts you were earlier demanding.
I see them on grocery counters everywhere. I know they are written on a level that someone with common sense would dismiss. But cite them if you will.
Now, you seem to have changed the criteria to demand that a UFO or some such be delivered to your garage on Sunday afternoon at 15:00 on CNN.
What I originally said was, "if all the real UFO's went away today, there would still be as many sightings of UFO's tomorrow." Without producing a UFO, ALF, or parts thereof it would be hard to prove me wrong.
I would settle for something from, say the last few thousand years or so. I would even be willing to travel to any Museum or Carnival at which you choose to display it.
Don't hold your breath.
Of course not, I might turn blue and you would claim you finally have real proof.
Never the less, you will be brought as much face to face with such facts as the rest of the folks of our era when God allows it/the powers that be engineer it and/or the ET's stage it regardless of the puppet masters but not regardless of God's ultimate control of such matters.
Swinging kind of a wide rope there Buckaroo. I didn't realize you were talking about UFO's sent by GOD. I thouhgt you meant UFO's from other worlds. Are you really saying my scepticism about UFO's makes me irreligious? I'll wait for God to make that determination, if you please.
I would love to see your face then. It should be quite expressive. I get a kick out of vividly expressive faces undergoing a paradigm shift.
Picture my blue face, with tongue sticking out, going, Nahhh-nah-nah-nah-nah
Cheers.
I kinda thought you were a drinking man.
Prozit
And they remain theories until proofs, tests, and reproducible results are offered.
Hello? I don't understand the difficulty. It's not rocket science. It's not brain surgery.
Pretend a blue ribbon panel of scientists is tasked with inspecting the Golden Gate Bridge and determining the rate of the deterioration of the paint.
1. SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION is that on the side exposed to the strongest salt spray and wind, the deterioration is faster in micrometers per month or year by a factor of 3X's compared to the paint least exposed to salt spray and strong wind. THAT'S A FACT. THAT'S NOT A THEORY. And, that's just the sort of OBSERVED FACTS cited in the journal articles I posted.
It may be that there arises from the bridge inspection a theory that strong salt spray laden winds cause the paint to degrade faster. That may be a correct, factual theory.
It may also be that greater portions of bird poop with some unknown acidic compound tends to get slathered against the windy salt-sprayed side more. That could consist of a flawed aspect of the theory if not known and accounted for.
In the articles I referred to, the author had a complex theory about ionospheric vortices and what not. I didn't think much of his theory though it was more than a little plausible. So, I didn't mention it. That was the theory part of the articles. IT WAS NOT THE HARD FACTS PART.
It's extremely difficult for me to understand, even as a shrink, how anyone could confuse fact and theory so wholesale and understand much of anything in science.\
And I think you know that the journal articles I ref'd presented just the sorts of hard facts you were earlier demanding.
I see them on grocery counters everywhere. I know they are written on a level that someone with common sense would dismiss. But cite them if you will.
Ahhhhhhhhhh, more ABSOLUTELY OFF THE WALL haughty insult totally devoid of a shred of truthfulness. The scientific journals I referenced have nothing to do with supermarket tabloids, and you know it. Do you have a PhD in cheekiness? No, I don't think any committee would have accepted a dissertation so confused about theories and facts.
Now, you seem to have changed the criteria to demand that a UFO or some such be delivered to your garage on Sunday afternoon at 15:00 on CNN.
What I originally said was, "if all the real UFO's went away today, there would still be as many sightings of UFO's tomorrow." Without producing a UFO, ALF, or parts thereof it would be hard to prove me wrong.
That wasn't all you said. You said ANY HARD FACTS about any of the topics I was pontificating about. ANY . . . as in . . . A . . N . . Y. ANY. Simple word. All inclusive word. I did. You denied the facts. Then you denied the denial. You still are.
I would settle for something from, say the last few thousand years or so.
No, you wouldn't as you have REPEATEDLY PROVEN AS POINT OF FACT. You refuse to accept facts inconvenient to your construction on reality. I find that a rather narrow, rigid, clueless and haughty construction on reality, habit, compulsion, imho.
Never the less, you will be brought as much face to face with such facts as the rest of the folks of our era when God allows it/the powers that be engineer it and/or the ET's stage it regardless of the puppet masters but not regardless of God's ultimate control of such matters.
Swinging kind of a wide rope there Buckaroo. I didn't realize you were talking about UFO's sent by GOD. I thouhgt you meant UFO's from other worlds. Are you really saying my scepticism about UFO's makes me irreligious? I'll wait for God to make that determination, if you please.
Goodness, is this habit of confusing things a chronic habit, mental fart or what? I didn't say anything of the kind!
I make some sweeping pontifications about the End Times and events to unfold in them. God will have His overriding part. Satan and his cohorts--which, I'm convinced, includes most to all the known races of ET's commonly reported about . . . The subject is complex enough. Confusing apples, oranges, cacti and whale snot is not a good route to understanding.
I would love to see your face then. It should be quite expressive. I get a kick out of vividly expressive faces undergoing a paradigm shift.
I kinda thought you were a drinking man.
I realize this fact will likely be denied by you along with a long list of other facts . . . but the fact is . . . I drink probably less than 3-4 glasses of low alcohol wine per YEAR. And never more than 1-2 glasses over dinner over a 2-3 hour span of time. Usually no more than one at a sitting.
This is certainly a fascinating pseudo dialog for a psychologist. Love it. Don't plan to write it up as a case study but it's a kick.
Actually, I do want to express my appreciation.
The display of the chronic tendencies, mentalities, constructions on reality, confusions, etc. of most naysayers is very helpful to the topic.
Marvelously wonderful. Thanks tons.