Replies

So, my advice is simple. Stick to FACTS, and read them, don’t form an opinion because of personal BELIEFS about something like this.
***I am sticking to facts. And I have not had the opportunity, like you, to ask the President (REAGAN!) a question about UFOs. You might want to read the book for yourself because, like you, it’s squarely in the middle.

Do UFOs exist? Damn right they do?
***UFOs are Unidentified Flying Objects. There are zillions of those. Do Flying Saucers Exist? Yes. Are they man-made? Yes.

Are they controlled by “aliens” or “extra terrestrial intelligences”... we have no way of knowing, or proving this at all.
***That’s why we need to rely upon Inductive reasoning because you so astutely point out that Deductive reasoning does not work on this subject. What is the most likely explanation of an event — that a kid ate the cookie from the cookie jar, or that a magic fairy visited him and left a secret message in the form of teeth marks on cookies?

(And yes, MOST UFOs can indeed be explained, but there are large numbers of them that simply can’t be explained away as something natural or man made).
***Well, I’m going to start focusing on the flying saucer variety. They aren’t swamp gas. They aren’t Venus. Nor are they aliens. They are secret weapons.

***UFOs are Unidentified Flying Objects. There are zillions of those. Do Flying Saucers Exist? Yes. Are they man-made? Yes.

hehe. I don't know that I would agree there are "flying saucers", but I have seen videos of various types of vehicles the US and Russians have worked on, but none of them flew very well.

So, I wouldn't say "all flying saucers are man made". I'd actually decline to say "there are flying saucers".

***That’s why we need to rely upon Inductive reasoning because you so astutely point out that Deductive reasoning does not work on this subject. What is the most likely explanation of an event — that a kid ate the cookie from the cookie jar, or that a magic fairy visited him and left a secret message in the form of teeth marks on cookies?

I tend to use deductive reasoning because, you are basing things on knowns. You can't base things on unknowns.

Then again, using inductive reasoning -- which in general takes a vast amount of data and lets you pick and chose patterns from with in the data, but it gives you only generalized answers, not specific answers.

Deductive reasoning can be used to solve proofs in mathematics, inductive logic does not.

I use inductive reasoning quite a bit, when dealing with large quantities of posts on another web site, wherein there are discussions (in particular things like we're talking about now) to get a "feel" for where things are going and to form a basic idea of the concepts involved.

The PROBLEM is that when you use inductive reasoning for making a determination as to whether or not "flying saucers exist and they are weapons systems" you're actually applying your own belief system to the argument.

YOU believe, therefore it must be. --- Umm no. If you can show an image, or a description of a "flying object" and show something similar, in say, the war on terror and apply the similarities of the two objects to show that one is a weapons system, therefore the other MUST be, then I'd agree with you.

Simply reading vast amounts of information regarding observations of UFOs and their behavior doesn't give a good sense to me that they exist and are man made. MOSTLY because patterns of operation of "said craft" vary greatly based on the people making the observations, as well as the LOCATIONS of the observations. Things spotting in China look and behave "differently" than they do in Brazille or the USA.

***Well, I’m going to start focusing on the flying saucer variety. They aren’t swamp gas. They aren’t Venus. Nor are they aliens. They are secret weapons.

I agree with you on a couple of points (Swamp gas, planets etc). Of course, I can generally recognize Venus, or Mars, or Jupiter most of the time with the naked eye. And I do understand jumping eye muscles making lights in the sky appear to wobble everywhere after staring for a few moments. I'm quite familiar with that phenomenon :)

I've watched people see a bright light in the sky and actually freak out calling it a "flying saucer" when all it turned out to be was a plane, at a great distance, with the bright landing lights aimmed in their direction. They would give a description that "the light varied quickly" or something similar. Then when the object got closer, they were disappointed to see it being a plane....

I've also had people point at Venus and say it was "moving around". Once you explain to them their eye muscles are jerking about, and show them a stationary object to sight across to look at their "UFO" they can see it's not jumping around.

That's not to say folks don't see odd things. They do. Sometimes they can't be explained away.

(As for "swamp gas", this is something else I'm familiar with. It happens usually close to the ground, isn't THAT bright and blinks in and out usually, pretty quickly as it ignites).

There are zillions of those. Do Flying Saucers Exist? Yes. Are they man-made? Yes.

I would make a point in defense of your argument. One thing that has aways bothered me about UFO phenomena is the design of the crafts depicted in artistic rendering throughout the history of the subject.

For a comparison, I would offer the legendary bigfoot. Whether one believes in bigfoot or not, one must admit that the artistic depictions of the creature remain relatively identical through the course of it's history- Even to representations on totem poles constructed before the foundation of our country.

When one looks at the history of UFOs, using a slice of history from the 1950s through today, one does not find that same continuity. If anything, the depictions and even photographs offer style changes quite in line with the changes in industrial ability here on earth.

The depictions from the fifties offer a craft looking much like two opposing and crudely formed hubcaps welded together, while by the nineties, the craft tend toward a sleek triangular swept single wing approach. If one were to increment each decade between the two, one can plainly see the evolution taking place, and it follows closely with the futuristic visions of the earth bound industry of that respective day.

That being said, my own opinion will wind up somewhere between yourself and our FRiend Quix, whose position holds much value as well. I think technological advancement is driven by demonic forces, and always has been; their motive being to oppose Almighty God with the force available right here on this earth where they have been trapped among us. Our literal dependence on that technology drives us away from what God had intended and causes us to become calloused to the miraculous evidences of God by our reliance on false miracles.