UFO: The Greatest Story Ever Denied.

[_Darth J]

Let me get this straight:

I am agnostic because I believe in personal, subjective experiences with God but do not know how that could be empirically measured?

Really? Really?

Really.

Ray, who are some of your favorite people who claim to have empirical evidence for the existence of God?

(People who believe in intelligent design don't count, because their premise is that the existence of God can be inferred from the physical universe.)

I see. When exactly was this established as a fact?

And I do not need to see the entire video to know that they faked a recording of MacArthur in the first 15 minutes.

So you’re, obviously, not watching the rest of it, because the MacArthur segment is faked. On that alone, Dark J concludes that the WHOLE UFO PHENOMENON is “fake”. Do we have an example of a more objective poster here on Mormon Discussions? I doubt it. Now everyone bow your heads and say, “yes”.

No, I have not watched the rest of it yet because I have other things to do. You are simply dodging the question. You have no idea what I may be familiar with regarding claimed UFO evidences, and therefore your assumption that I am concluding that the whole UFO phenomenon is fake (which I never said) is unwarranted.

It is very obvious that you have no interest in discussing your beliefs, nor supporting your claims. Like the worst Mopologists, your only interest is attempting to discredit me out of personal animosity that I would dare be unconvinced that space aliens are visiting the Earth. Your statement here may be the most explicit example of that.

Ray, I am sorry that you take it as a personal affront when someone does not share your cherished beliefs. But your repeatedly demonstrated inability to discuss your beliefs rationally or coherently is not my fault.

All right. Other than your equating not being persuaded with ignorance, how exactly did we establish my ignorance? Was it that I did not recognize on sight one of the people claiming to be involved with an alleged space alien cover-up at Roswell, or was there more than that?

You’re a novice. Now do some more reading, and viewing, before exercising your vocal (or verbal) chords, or opining on that which you assessed for a whole 15 minutes.

At some point, are you going to provide a factual basis for your claim that I am a novice?

At what point is someone no longer a novice regarding UFO's? Is it when that person finally comes to believe in space aliens?

Could your articulate how exactly my several statements that I am reserving judgment amounts to your assertion that I have reached a final conclusion about your latest UFO homework assignment?

I'll help you with two distinctions that you missed: the Western Hemisphere is a finite place, and the existence of other pre-Columbian civilizations has been established.

Now go shout “Bingo!” and go claim your meat prize.

So you agree that you had no basis to claim that I don't believe space aliens could not possibly exist at all. I appreciate your concession.

Yes, by definition. I provided a dictionary link.

That would be the “Gospel Dictionary”? According to the word of Dark J?

No, that was dictionary.com, taking its definition from the Random House Dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apologist

Your “nuances” of dissent from classical theism, and your attempt to redefine everything according to “your spiritual experience”, speaks volumes about just how “objective” you really are.

But you not only acknowledged that there are subsets of theism, you provided links to articles about that.

Would you say that my statement that metaphysical experiences need to be assessed in light of empirical evidence would be an example of how I supposedly attempt to redefine everything in terms of my spiritual experience?

P.S. I didn't go to bed yet. Now I am, though. Do you mind clarifying where you intend to go with all this, by the way?

Only to establish that your “thinking” is limited to what you perceive as possible, not possible, reality, and not reality, and that you claim “God” when it suits you, but reject all other definitions of God as “mopologetics”.

Ray, can you tell me the name of a single human being who has ever lived who does not limit their thinking to their ontological perceptions?

Or, can you give me an example of where I rejected all definitions of God but my own (a definition I never gave, by the way) as Mopologetics?

Do you consider Mormonism to be a fraud and a delusion, while you are adamant that your “God spoke to me” experience is totally valid?

As soon as you are able to stop misrepresenting what I said, I will be happy to explain that.

Ray, you clearly have crossed the line separating rational discussion and religious zealotry. It is unfortunate that your jihad has arisen simply because I questioned your cherished beliefs. At this point you have shown that your behavior and the behavior of vindictive Mormon apologists is indistinguishable. You certainly have the option of showing me why this is not the case, but your multi-page, multi-thread personal vendetta is not a particularly effective way to do that.

[_Ray A]

Ray, who are some of your favorite people who claim to have empirical evidence for the existence of God?

(People who believe in intelligent design don't count, because their premise is that the existence of God can be inferred from the physical universe.)

If by empirical evidence you mean that which can be established to the satisfaction of Scientific American, then no one. Lots of people throughout history have claimed to have seen God, or God’s messengers in the form of angels.

No, I have not watched the rest of it yet because I have other things to do. You are simply dodging the question. You have no idea what I may be familiar with regarding claimed UFO evidences, and therefore your assumption that I am concluding that the whole UFO phenomenon is fake (which I never said) is unwarranted.

You haven’t demonstrated to me that you have an open mind regarding the subject. Even the critical Buffalo outdoes you here.

It is very obvious that you have no interest in discussing your beliefs, nor supporting your claims. Like the worst Mopologists, your only interest is attempting to discredit me out of personal animosity that I would dare be unconvinced that space aliens are visiting the Earth. Your statement here may be the most explicit example of that.

Ray, I am sorry that you take it as a personal affront when someone does not share your cherished beliefs. But your repeatedly demonstrated inability to discuss your beliefs rationally or coherently is not my fault.

And of course you have not tried to discredit me. The exmos who tried to discredit Warren Aston by lumping his FARMS apologetics with his UFO studies had no ill-intentions. They clearly believe that UFO studies and Mormon apologetics is the same thing, which you also believe. Your inability to distinguish here is startling, and you have repeatedly reinforced this point.

What do you mean by “rationally and coherently”? Agreement with you? I must accept that we saw a “laser beam effect”, because that is “rational and coherent”? So if I agreed it was a “laser beam effect”, then you’d say “now you are making sense”. You have endlessly tried to twist everything I said by focusing on “hits” that you think discredit me. A rational person would keep an open mind, and not insist that their interpretation of another’s experience is the correct one. I’ve asked you numerous times to give other explanations, and all you can resort to is the “laser beam effect”. Why not try something like ball lightning, and we could closely examine to see if this fits (I have, and I don’t believe it does, but you’re welcome to examine it). Your selective reading of my blog hasn’t helped. Here is what I also wrote:

At first I, and I think all of us, thought it might be some laser beam effect, but as they came closer it was obvious that we were witnessing something that appeared rather “unworldly”.

In other words, not a laser beam effect. The clear metallic-looking bodies of the craft as they hovered seemed to discount that. What I don’t know is whether the craft were of terrestrial or extraterrestrial origin, or piloted by humans, aliens, or automatically. All of these are open possibilities, but you seem to insist on only one possibility because it is “rational and coherent”; in other words, it fits your worldview.

I referred my blog entry to UFO expert Timothy Good, who has discredited thousands of “UFO sightings”, thinking that if anyone could offer an alternative explanation or discredit it, he could. He replied, “it seems like the real thing”. I see no reason to give more importance to your opinion than someone who has been studying UFO phenomena for some 56 years.

At some point, are you going to provide a factual basis for your claim that I am a novice?

At what point is someone no longer a novice regarding UFO's? Is it when that person finally comes to believe in space aliens?

There are UFO experts who don’t believe the extraterrestrial origin theory. I don’t agree with them, though I do agree that some UFO phenomena could be, probably is of terrestrial origin.

Could your articulate how exactly my several statements that I am reserving judgment amounts to your assertion that I have reached a final conclusion about your latest UFO homework assignment?

How can you expect me not to be cynical of your motives when you’re making what you suppose is a “rational and coherent” case for a video you’ve only see 15 minutes of? Why don’t you go through the whole video and refute it point by point, and if you can’t then the least you can do it retain an open mind. It’s probably pointless discussing this until you’ve seen the whole film.

No, that was dictionary.com, taking its definition from the Random House Dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apologist

The term “apologist” has both positive and negative associations. You have made it quite clear that you view me in the same category as Mormon “Mopologists”. I think there is both good and bad Mormon apologetics, but you see me in the “Mopologist” category, so don’t blame me for being cynical about your motives.

But you not only acknowledged that there are subsets of theism, you provided links to articles about that.

Would you say that my statement that metaphysical experiences need to be assessed in light of empirical evidence would be an example of how I supposedly attempt to redefine everything in terms of my spiritual experience?

First of all, as I stated above, it isn’t possible to test metaphysical experiences like visions empirically.

Metaphysics defined:

The scientific method, however, transformed natural philosophy into an empirical activity arriving from experiment unlike the rest of philosophy. By the end of the 18th century, it had begun to be called "science" to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence.

Meta-physics literally means “beyond physics”.

Ray, can you tell me the name of a single human being who has ever lived who does not limit their thinking to their ontological perceptions?

Or, can you give me an example of where I rejected all definitions of God but my own (a definition I never gave, by the way) as Mopologetics?

I’ll turn this question by asking you to clarify which definitions of God you accept? Tell me, other than your own personal experience, which “God experience” you accept, or have an open mind to.

As soon as you are able to stop misrepresenting what I said, I will be happy to explain that.

Do explain it.

Ray, you clearly have crossed the line separating rational discussion and religious zealotry. It is unfortunate that your jihad has arisen simply because I questioned your cherished beliefs. At this point you have shown that your behavior and the behavior of vindictive Mormon apologists is indistinguishable. You certainly have the option of showing me why this is not the case, but your multi-page, multi-thread personal vendetta is not a particularly effective way to do that.

Re-read all of what I posted above. My defence of what I believe has now become “religious zealotry” and “jihad”, and is “indistinguishable” from Mormon apologists. You really have a winning and charming way with your superficial stereotypes.

[_Darth J]

Ray, who are some of your favorite people who claim to have empirical evidence for the existence of God?

(People who believe in intelligent design don't count, because their premise is that the existence of God can be inferred from the physical universe.)

If by empirical evidence you mean that which can be established to the satisfaction of Scientific American, then no one. Lots of people throughout history have claimed to have seen God, or God’s messengers in the form of angels.

Then every single one of them is agnostic, because if they cannot prove empirically that God exists, then they are agnostic. Right?

No, I have not watched the rest of it yet because I have other things to do. You are simply dodging the question. You have no idea what I may be familiar with regarding claimed UFO evidences, and therefore your assumption that I am concluding that the whole UFO phenomenon is fake (which I never said) is unwarranted.

You haven’t demonstrated to me that you have an open mind regarding the subject. Even the critical Buffalo outdoes you here.

What was substantively different between what Buffalo said and what I said?

It is very obvious that you have no interest in discussing your beliefs, nor supporting your claims. Like the worst Mopologists, your only interest is attempting to discredit me out of personal animosity that I would dare be unconvinced that space aliens are visiting the Earth. Your statement here may be the most explicit example of that.

Ray, I am sorry that you take it as a personal affront when someone does not share your cherished beliefs. But your repeatedly demonstrated inability to discuss your beliefs rationally or coherently is not my fault.

And of course you have not tried to discredit me. The exmos who tried to discredit Warren Aston by lumping his FARMS apologetics with his UFO studies had no ill-intentions. They clearly believe that UFO studies and Mormon apologetics is the same thing, which you also believe. Your inability to distinguish here is startling, and you have repeatedly reinforced this point.

You do not need my help to be discredited. Your following me around on different threads with your dog thing was not my doing. Your multi-page, multi-thread habit of making unsupported assertions about what I supposedly said or think has not been my doing, either.

What do you mean by “rationally and coherently”? Agreement with you? I must accept that we saw a “laser beam effect”, because that is “rational and coherent”? So if I agreed it was a “laser beam effect”, then you’d say “now you are making sense”. You have endlessly tried to twist everything I said by focusing on “hits” that you think discredit me. A rational person would keep an open mind, and not insist that their interpretation of another’s experience is the correct one. I’ve asked you numerous times to give other explanations, and all you can resort to is the “laser beam effect”. Why not try something like ball lightning, and we could closely examine to see if this fits (I have, and I don’t believe it does, but you’re welcome to examine it).

I mean that your reflexive response is not to say, "these are the reasons that I find the evidence I have seen to be convincing that space aliens have visited the Earth." Your reflexive response is to go on endlessly with unsupported assertions about how I am closed-minded or a dogmatic skeptic or whatever.

Your selective reading of my blog hasn’t helped. Here is what I also wrote:

"At first I, and I think all of us, thought it might be some laser beam effect, but as they came closer it was obvious that we were witnessing something that appeared rather 'unworldly.'"

In other words, not a laser beam effect. The clear metallic-looking bodies of the craft as they hovered seemed to discount that. What I don’t know is whether the craft were of terrestrial or extraterrestrial origin, or piloted by humans, aliens, or automatically. All of these are open possibilities, but you seem to insist on only one possibility because it is “rational and coherent”; in other words, it fits your worldview.

In other words, you don't know what you saw, which is what I also said.

I referred my blog entry to UFO expert Timothy Good, who has discredited thousands of “UFO sightings”, thinking that if anyone could offer an alternative explanation or discredit it, he could. He replied, “it seems like the real thing”. I see no reason to give more importance to your opinion than someone who has been studying UFO phenomena for some 56 years.

"The real thing" that this was in fact an unidentified flying object? I already agreed with you on that.

Did he positively identify this as a vehicle designed/built/piloted by space aliens? If so, how did he make that determination?

At some point, are you going to provide a factual basis for your claim that I am a novice?

At what point is someone no longer a novice regarding UFO's? Is it when that person finally comes to believe in space aliens?

There are UFO experts who don’t believe the extraterrestrial origin theory. I don’t agree with them, though I do agree that some UFO phenomena could be, probably is of terrestrial origin.

So since I already said, several times, that I do not dispute the existence of unidentified flying objects, you are asserting what, exactly?

Could your articulate how exactly my several statements that I am reserving judgment amounts to your assertion that I have reached a final conclusion about your latest UFO homework assignment?

How can you expect me not to be cynical of your motives when you’re making what you suppose is a “rational and coherent” case for a video you’ve only see 15 minutes of? Why don’t you go through the whole video and refute it point by point, and if you can’t then the least you can do it retain an open mind. It’s probably pointless discussing this until you’ve seen the whole film.

I did not make a case for the whole video. I made a case that up to the point I have seen, they faked an audio recording of Douglas MacArthur. I specifically said that I am reserving judgment on the rest, but that this was not a promising sign.

Do you feel I should take it as a good sign that the producers faked something 15 minutes into the video?

No, that was dictionary.com, taking its definition from the Random House Dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apologist

The term “apologist” has both positive and negative associations. You have made it quite clear that you view me in the same category as Mormon “Mopologists”. I think there is both good and bad Mormon apologetics, but you see me in the “Mopologist” category, so don’t blame me for being cynical about your motives.

Your ongoing personal vitriol is why I see you in the Moplogist category.

But you not only acknowledged that there are subsets of theism, you provided links to articles about that.

Would you say that my statement that metaphysical experiences need to be assessed in light of empirical evidence would be an example of how I supposedly attempt to redefine everything in terms of my spiritual experience?

First of all, as I stated above, it isn’t possible to test metaphysical experiences like visions empirically.

Metaphysics defined:

"The scientific method, however, transformed natural philosophy into an empirical activity arriving from experiment unlike the rest of philosophy. By the end of the 18th century, it had begun to be called "science" to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence."

Meta-physics literally means “beyond physics”.

And since that is exactly what I said, your point is............

Ray, can you tell me the name of a single human being who has ever lived who does not limit their thinking to their ontological perceptions?

Or, can you give me an example of where I rejected all definitions of God but my own (a definition I never gave, by the way) as Mopologetics?

I’ll turn this question by asking you to clarify which definitions of God you accept? Tell me, other than your own personal experience, which “God experience” you accept, or have an open mind to.

I don't really know what exactly I think about God now. That's pretty open-ended these days.

But I do not find "God inspired people all over the world to teach conflicting and mutually exclusive things about him and the meaning of life" to be an especially plausible explanation of why there are so many different religions.

I take it from your ignoring and deflecting my question that you concede that it was ridiculous for you to claim that somehow there is something dogmatic about me because I think of things in terms of my own sense of ontology just like every other person who has ever existed does.

As soon as you are able to stop misrepresenting what I said, I will be happy to explain that.

Do explain it.

I already did. Go look through your "Book of Mormon Challenge."

You've given me enough homework with your two UFO videos without also demanding that I repeat something I already explained.

Ray, you clearly have crossed the line separating rational discussion and religious zealotry. It is unfortunate that your jihad has arisen simply because I questioned your cherished beliefs. At this point you have shown that your behavior and the behavior of vindictive Mormon apologists is indistinguishable. You certainly have the option of showing me why this is not the case, but your multi-page, multi-thread personal vendetta is not a particularly effective way to do that.

Re-read all of what I posted above. My defence of what I believe has now become “religious zealotry” and “jihad”, and is “indistinguishable” from Mormon apologists. You really have a winning and charming way with your superficial stereotypes.

"What you posted above" is the basis for my conclusion that you are on a jihad. A conclusion drawn from your specific behavior is not a stereotype.

You are not acting any differently than Pahoran. You have done nothing to explain your beliefs or discuss them; you have only wasted a great deal of time and space on this board on a personal crusade against me simply because I said that I find no compelling reason to believe that space aliens have come to our planet.

And I am done responding to your unsupported assertions and misrepresentations of what I say. I am also done with your emotional meltdown and your explicit desire to "discredit" me with readers of this message board (as if I am some kind of public figure or leader). When I get some time to allocate to UFO's, I will finish your video and decide what I think about it.

[_Ray A]

Then every single one of them is agnostic, because if they cannot prove empirically that God exists, then they are agnostic. Right?

Wrong. Not being able to prove something empirically doesn’t mean it isn’t true, or didn’t happen. Others may be agnostic to their claims. To Joseph Smith Moroni in his room wasn’t something he was “agnostic” about. He didn’t report “I think I saw an angel, but I’m not sure.” “I think he spoke to me, but I remain agnostic about that.” Joan of Arc heard voices and saw spirit beings, and I’m pretty sure she wasn’t agnostic about that, especially since it costed her life.

What was substantively different between what Buffalo said and what I said?

Buffalo.

You.

In your ignorance you don’t realise that “UFO artifacts” have been found. Those are the claims made in the video which you’ve watched 15 minutes of. Many of your posts in this thread are just littered with ignorance because you’ve made hasty judgements without viewing the evidence. So how can you remain “open to possibilities” if you haven’t examined the evidence? Several other posters on this thread have encouraged you be more open minded, so I’m obviously not the only one thinking you are not.

You do not need my help to be discredited. Your following me around on different threads with your dog thing was not my doing. Your multi-page, multi-thread habit of making unsupported assertions about what I supposedly said or think has not been my doing, either.

I did the “dog thing” in a light-hearted way, but obviously you saw it differently (truly sorry about that). I ceased and desisted, then came here to do a serious thread on UFOs, and you followed me here (if you want to view it that way) with ridiculous comments like:

I think it is very apropos to have a thread on ufology on a board dedicated to talking about religious faith.

Ufology apologists are essentially indistinguishable from Mormon apologists, so it certainly fits the theme.

And ufology even has its own Daniel Peterson. His name is Stanton Friedman.

(That's not completely fair, though. Dr. Peterson actually does teach in his chosen field. Stan Friedman has done nothing but UFO apologetics since the 1970's).

I wonder where we're going to find some UFO artifacts. Maybe in Zarahemla?

You discredited yourself on this thread from post number one. And you hijacked it. All because of your personal vendetta against me (if you want to view it that way).

I mean that your reflexive response is not to say, "these are the reasons that I find the evidence I have seen to be convincing that space aliens have visited the Earth." Your reflexive response is to go on endlessly with unsupported assertions about how I am closed-minded or a dogmatic skeptic or whatever.

Double HUH? That is exactly what I am saying, and you dogmatically call it “Mopologetics”. I am not convinced that we are being visited by aliens because of what I saw, just to make that clear, although this experience certainly revived my interest in the subject. I am convinced by evidences such as those contained in the film. There are currently seven definitions for “close encounters”, and mine was an encounter of the First Kind.

In other words, you don't know what you saw, which is what I also said.

I know what I saw, and what I saw (repeating for you again) results in either two scenarios:

1. The craft were alien.
2. The craft were earthly, in which case someone on earth has technology unknown to the public.

Then you go on to dispute everything I said about the encounter to try to prove to me it was of earthly origin (or mental illusion) (disputing size, height, speed and firsthand observations).

"The real thing" that this was in fact an unidentified flying object? I already agreed with you on that.

Did he positively identify this as a vehicle designed/built/piloted by space aliens? If so, how did he make that determination?

Let me spell it out for you: Not all UFO sightings are genuine. Some have more credibility than others. If you see a light shooting across the sky it could be a UFO or a falling star. If you see a light as Quasimodo previously explained he did, which did something odd, it might or might not be “the real thing” (alien craft). When three disc-shaped objects hover directly over your head it cannot be mistaken for a “falling star”, or a nebulous light in the sky. I repeat, there is no mistaking what you are seeing! Timothy Good obviously made judgements based on that, and things like shape, speed, performance and the closeness of the encounter. All of which you have disputed, and insist on telling me otherwise, and yet you still have no valid counter-explanation. I presume Timothy Good doesn’t either, hence his verdict “it seems like the real thing”. You? A very different story.

So since I already said, several times, that I do not dispute the existence of unidentified flying objects, you are asserting what, exactly?

See above.

I did not make a case for the whole video. I made a case that up to the point I have seen, they faked an audio recording of Douglas MacArthur. I specifically said that I am reserving judgment on the rest, but that this was not a promising sign.

Do you feel I should take it as a good sign that the producers faked something 15 minutes into the video?

Who said they faked it? They may really have believed he said that when making the film.

Should everyone stop reading The Spectator because it wrote:

In October 1955 General Douglas MacArthur told the cadets of West Point: ‘The next war will be an interplanetary war. The nations of the earth must someday make a common front against attack by people from other planets.’ The cadets must have wondered which planet MacArthur himself was from, but his fears were no more far-fetched than the current government-fed paranoia that millions of us are about to be murdered in our beds by Islamofascist superbiotoxins kept at 45 minutes’ readiness in a bedsit in Tipton and activated by psychotic double-amputees.

Your ongoing personal vitriol is why I see you in the Moplogist category.

Then eat your words, because you have to be one of the most vitriolic and mocking critics on this board.

I don't really know what exactly I think about God now. That's pretty open-ended these days.

But I do not find "God inspired people all over the world to teach conflicting and mutually exclusive things about him and the meaning of life" to be an especially plausible explanation of why there are so many different religions.

I take it from your ignoring and deflecting my question that you concede that it was ridiculous for you to claim that somehow there is something dogmatic about me because I think of things in terms of my own sense of ontology just like every other person who has ever existed does.

I asked which “God experiences” you are open to, other than yours. You didn’t name any. “Implausible explanations” for religions isn’t an answer. I guess if you don’t even know where you stand in regard to a God belief you can't assess the validity of others.

"What you posted above" is the basis for my conclusion that you are on a jihad. A conclusion drawn from your specific behavior is not a stereotype.

How ridiculous, and you know it. I wonder why other posters don’t think I’m “on a jihad”? That’s a pretty emotive word to use.

You are not acting any differently than Pahoran.

Another stretch of your hyperbole, obviously.

You have done nothing to explain your beliefs or discuss them; you have only wasted a great deal of time and space on this board on a personal crusade against me simply because I said that I find no compelling reason to believe that space aliens have come to our planet.

Ummm….did I say you must post on this thread so I could discredit you? Did I force you to this thread at gunpoint? You came here on page one, of your own accord, and turned the whole thread into what I never initially intended, which was respectful discussion. Your very first post was not respectful.

And I am done responding to your unsupported assertions and misrepresentations of what I say. I am also done with your emotional meltdown and your explicit desire to "discredit" me with readers of this message board (as if I am some kind of public figure or leader). When I get some time to allocate to UFO's, I will finish your video and decide what I think about it.

I wasn’t intentionally trying to do any discrediting. I was simply responding to your inflammatory posts in a forum which is supposed to be:

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only.

When you’re finished viewing the whole video, do come back and let’s discuss it “respectfully”.

[_Ray A]

Snopes on that MacArthur speech:

Status: Multiple*

So, General Douglas MacArthur did suggest the notion of an eventual interplanetary war on at least a couple of occasions; one of them was in 1955, and one of them was during a speech at West Point.

*Not false.

[_Darth J]

Snopes on that MacArthur speech:

Status: Multiple*

So, General Douglas MacArthur did suggest the notion of an eventual interplanetary war on at least a couple of occasions; one of them was in 1955, and one of them was during a speech at West Point.

*Not false.

Is false.

He never made the statement attributed to him in the video, so it is impossible for it to have been recorded.

The 1955 media accounts are of Achille Lauro summarizing what he talked about with MacArthur. It was not a recorded speech in 1955, the date given in the video.

He did not make the statement the video attributes to him in his later West Point speech, either.

Two accounts, neither of which can be reconciled with the purported recorded statement on the date given in the UFO video.

[_Joseph]

If someone sees one land ask the driver if you can borrow his map showing the directions to Kolob?

[_Darth J]

Then every single one of them is agnostic, because if they cannot prove empirically that God exists, then they are agnostic. Right?

Wrong. Not being able to prove something empirically doesn’t mean it isn’t true, or didn’t happen. Others may be agnostic to their claims. To Joseph Smith Moroni in his room wasn’t something he was “agnostic” about. He didn’t report “I think I saw an angel, but I’m not sure.” “I think he spoke to me, but I remain agnostic about that.” Joan of Arc heard voices and saw spirit beings, and I’m pretty sure she wasn’t agnostic about that, especially since it costed her life.

And therefore, your assertion that I am agnostic because I believe I had an experience with God that cannot be empirically proven means nothing.

What was substantively different between what Buffalo said and what I said?

Buffalo.

You.

Instead of taking two quotes talking about different things, maybe it would be helpful if you took one of my several statements where I said, like Buffalo, that I do not claim to know that space aliens don't exist, but I have not seen convincing proof to make me believe that they have visited the Earth.

In your ignorance you don’t realise that “UFO artifacts” have been found. Those are the claims made in the video which you’ve watched 15 minutes of. Many of your posts in this thread are just littered with ignorance because you’ve made hasty judgements without viewing the evidence. So how can you remain “open to possibilities” if you haven’t examined the evidence?

Because, as I have reminded you many times, I have heard about UFO evidences before this video.

Artifacts from space aliens have not been found, any more than a wooden Aztec club is evidence of swords in the Book of Mormon. I am aware that people claim to have UFO artifacts. Maybe there will be something in this video better than what I have seen so far.

Several other posters on this thread have encouraged you be more open minded, so I’m obviously not the only one thinking you are not.

You may be surprised to learn that I do not feel regulated by what other board members tell you in private messages.

You do not need my help to be discredited. Your following me around on different threads with your dog thing was not my doing. Your multi-page, multi-thread habit of making unsupported assertions about what I supposedly said or think has not been my doing, either.

I did the “dog thing” in a light-hearted way, but obviously you saw it differently (truly sorry about that). I ceased and desisted, then came here to do a serious thread on UFOs, and you followed me here (if you want to view it that way) with ridiculous comments like:

"I think it is very apropos to have a thread on ufology on a board dedicated to talking about religious faith.

Ufology apologists are essentially indistinguishable from Mormon apologists, so it certainly fits the theme.

And ufology even has its own Daniel Peterson. His name is Stanton Friedman.

(That's not completely fair, though. Dr. Peterson actually does teach in his chosen field. Stan Friedman has done nothing but UFO apologetics since the 1970's).

I wonder where we're going to find some UFO artifacts. Maybe in Zarahemla?"

You discredited yourself on this thread from post number one. And you hijacked it. All because of your personal vendetta against me (if you want to view it that way).

On the other hand, you had the option of making your case of why you find evidence of space aliens to be convincing. It is not my fault that you have not availed yourself of that opportunity.

I mean that your reflexive response is not to say, "these are the reasons that I find the evidence I have seen to be convincing that space aliens have visited the Earth." Your reflexive response is to go on endlessly with unsupported assertions about how I am closed-minded or a dogmatic skeptic or whatever.

Double HUH? That is exactly what I am saying, and you dogmatically call it “Mopologetics”. I am not convinced that we are being visited by aliens because of what I saw, just to make that clear, although this experience certainly revived my interest in the subject. I am convinced by evidences such as those contained in the film. There are currently seven definitions for “close encounters”, and mine was an encounter of the First Kind.

Well that would make all these declarations about my supposed dogmatic skepticism quite unnecessary, wouldn't it?

In other words, you don't know what you saw, which is what I also said.

I know what I saw, and what I saw (repeating for you again) results in either two scenarios:

1. The craft were alien.
2. The craft were earthly, in which case someone on earth has technology unknown to the public.

Then you go on to dispute everything I said about the encounter to try to prove to me it was of earthly origin (or mental illusion) (disputing size, height, speed and firsthand observations).

Disputing the size/height/etc. has to do with your claimed ability to calculate its velocity. You could not have done that with what you were able to perceive. You could not have done that with a normal airplane, or a bird, or a kite, or a UFO. It is a limitation on human perception; that this was in the context of a UFO sighting does not matter.

As to #2, you already said that there are UFO experts who believe that the phenomena are best explained by terrestrial events. And I don't think anyone seriously dispute that there may be technologies on earth that the general public doesn't know about.

"The real thing" that this was in fact an unidentified flying object? I already agreed with you on that.

Did he positively identify this as a vehicle designed/built/piloted by space aliens? If so, how did he make that determination?

Let me spell it out for you: Not all UFO sightings are genuine. Some have more credibility than others. If you see a light shooting across the sky it could be a UFO or a falling star. If you see a light as Quasimodo previously explained he did, which did something odd, it might or might not be “the real thing” (alien craft). When three disc-shaped objects hover directly over your head it cannot be mistaken for a “falling star”, or a nebulous light in the sky. I repeat, there is no mistaking what you are seeing! Timothy Good obviously made judgements based on that, and things like shape, speed, performance and the closeness of the encounter. All of which you have disputed, and insist on telling me otherwise, and yet you still have no valid counter-explanation. I presume Timothy Good doesn’t either, hence his verdict “it seems like the real thing”. You? A very different story.

So did he say it positively was a space alien or not?

So since I already said, several times, that I do not dispute the existence of unidentified flying objects, you are asserting what, exactly?

See above.

Okay. Part of your inference that it may have been a space alien depends on the perceived performance of this thing. How were you able to measure its distance away from you in the sky with nothing to provide a frame of reference?

I did not make a case for the whole video. I made a case that up to the point I have seen, they faked an audio recording of Douglas MacArthur. I specifically said that I am reserving judgment on the rest, but that this was not a promising sign.

Do you feel I should take it as a good sign that the producers faked something 15 minutes into the video?

Who said they faked it? They may really have believed he said that when making the film.

So what you're saying is, they may sincerely believe in something and yet be mistaken.

Should everyone stop reading The Spectator because it wrote:

In October 1955 General Douglas MacArthur told the cadets of West Point: ‘The next war will be an interplanetary war. The nations of the earth must someday make a common front against attack by people from other planets.’ The cadets must have wondered which planet MacArthur himself was from, but his fears were no more far-fetched than the current government-fed paranoia that millions of us are about to be murdered in our beds by Islamofascist superbiotoxins kept at 45 minutes’ readiness in a bedsit in Tipton and activated by psychotic double-amputees.

No, what they should do is stop taking statements like this at face value, because the premise of the above depends on the author believing an inaccurate account of what Douglas MacArthur said.

Your ongoing personal vitriol is why I see you in the Moplogist category.

Then eat your words, because you have to be one of the most vitriolic and mocking critics on this board.

Yes, sometimes I am. But I do that in the context of talking about evidence and things like that, not just a Pahoran-style excoriation of everyone who made my enemies list.

I don't really know what exactly I think about God now. That's pretty open-ended these days.

But I do not find "God inspired people all over the world to teach conflicting and mutually exclusive things about him and the meaning of life" to be an especially plausible explanation of why there are so many different religions.

I take it from your ignoring and deflecting my question that you concede that it was ridiculous for you to claim that somehow there is something dogmatic about me because I think of things in terms of my own sense of ontology just like every other person who has ever existed does.

I asked which “God experiences” you are open to, other than yours. You didn’t name any. “Implausible explanations” for religions isn’t an answer. I guess if you don’t even know where you stand in regard to a God belief you can't assess the validity of others.

No, I can't. But I can decide if I find that person to be credible. I can decide what his/her behavior says about how much credence I can put into it. I can look at the factual claims they say are knowledge from the supernatural realm and see if what they claim is true.

"What you posted above" is the basis for my conclusion that you are on a jihad. A conclusion drawn from your specific behavior is not a stereotype.

How ridiculous, and you know it. I wonder why other posters don’t think I’m “on a jihad”? That’s a pretty emotive word to use.

jihad:

any vigorous, emotional crusade for an idea or principle.

You are not acting any differently than Pahoran.

Another stretch of your hyperbole, obviously.

Not really. He goes on and on and on for pages denigrating his chosen enemies without really ever saying anything.

You have done nothing to explain your beliefs or discuss them; you have only wasted a great deal of time and space on this board on a personal crusade against me simply because I said that I find no compelling reason to believe that space aliens have come to our planet.

Ummm….did I say you must post on this thread so I could discredit you? Did I force you to this thread at gunpoint? You came here on page one, of your own accord, and turned the whole thread into what I never initially intended, which was respectful discussion. Your very first post was not respectful.

No, you did not force me to do anything. Nor did I force you to respond as have done. Nor did I force you to turn a "disrespectful" statement about an idea into a personal attack.

And I am done responding to your unsupported assertions and misrepresentations of what I say. I am also done with your emotional meltdown and your explicit desire to "discredit" me with readers of this message board (as if I am some kind of public figure or leader). When I get some time to allocate to UFO's, I will finish your video and decide what I think about it.

I wasn’t intentionally trying to do any discrediting. I was simply responding to your inflammatory posts in a forum which is supposed to be:

"The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only."

Would the "everyone bow your head and say yes" about Darth J being the most objective poster here be part of that scholarly, polite, respectful discussion?

When you’re finished viewing the whole video, do come back and let’s discuss it “respectfully”.

That's why it is taking me a while to get on that. I want to be able to watch it and pay attention, not just look at some snippets here and there.

[_Ray A]

Instead of taking two quotes talking about different things, maybe it would be helpful if you took one of my several statements where I said, like Buffalo, that I do not claim to know that space aliens don't exist, but I have not seen convincing proof to make me believe that they have visited the Earth.

When you get a chance, you and Buffalo can go through this blog post:

Governments Opening Secret UFO Files, and the Debate Goes On: Are They Here?

The Stephen Hawking video is no longer available because of copyright infringement.

I think this will give you an idea of how much you will have to go through to make a decision. Of course, you don’t have to if it bores you, but saying:

I have not seen convincing proof to make me believe that they have visited the Earth.

Will require a lot more reading and research than you currently appear to have under your belt. Be warned that not everything in UFO studies is “gospel”, but I think you already know that. Just letting you know that I am acutely aware of that. There’s probably more junk than truth “out there”, I concede that. Even a Google search will unravel the nonsense, but the full story is much more complicated. In my post I have linked to government files on UFO reports. They are more valuable; primary sources if you like, and better than the tabloid websites.

As far as books are concerned, the “primer” has to be Timothy Good’s Above Top Secret: The Worldwide U.F.O. Cover-Up.

Particularly the index, which contains hundreds of “classified secret files”.

Opinion on Good is divided, but here’s a sample: Book Reviews.

How many of the following reports are factual, I don’t know, though I do have an opinion on some which I think are factual:

List of UFO sightings

The list is not comprehensive, naturally, because mine isn’t there, if you know what I mean (lol)

Good luck, happy reading, and we will talk later as I have some other “stuff” to do at the moment. When I return I’ll reply to the other points in your post. Not all, because I can see in some areas we’re just going around in circles.

Later I'm also going to move on from our apparently exclusive "dialogue" (if you can call it that) and post other evidences for all to examine.

[_Ray A]

And therefore, your assertion that I am agnostic because I believe I had an experience with God that cannot be empirically proven means nothing.

I don’t know where you’re getting that from. This is what I wrote:

So by your definition you may not be theist, but if you believe in God, then you are a theist of some sort. If you don't like that idea, then maybe you should go with deism, which is still though a form of theism. The only problem with that is that it contradicts the idea that God could tell you "the Book of Mormon isn't true". While some deists allow for minimal "God intervention", it doesn't get to the level of God personally speaking to you about whether a religious text is true or not.

Because, as I have reminded you many times, I have heard about UFO evidences before this video.

Have a look at my post before this one.

Artifacts from space aliens have not been found, any more than a wooden Aztec club is evidence of swords in the Book of Mormon. I am aware that people claim to have UFO artifacts. Maybe there will be something in this video better than what I have seen so far.

The video is, if you like, only a primer, a synopsis, to get people thinking. You couldn’t know if artefacts from aliens haven’t been found unless you read all the evidence.

You may be surprised to learn that I do not feel regulated by what other board members tell you in private messages.

I seldom PM, or receive PMs. I’ve had exactly none on this subject, and none discussing you. You’re the Head Honcho on this board (apparently), not me.

On the other hand, you had the option of making your case of why you find evidence of space aliens to be convincing. It is not my fault that you have not availed yourself of that opportunity.

I think I rectified that in my last post, and the onus is now on you to read the evidence. I will later post many more evidences for you and others to examine.

Disputing the size/height/etc. has to do with your claimed ability to calculate its velocity. You could not have done that with what you were able to perceive. You could not have done that with a normal airplane, or a bird, or a kite, or a UFO. It is a limitation on human perception; that this was in the context of a UFO sighting does not matter.

Do you remember the days before radar when police used to time vehicles between two points to determine speed? In 1971 I was actually prosecuted for a speeding offence by exactly that method.

As to #2, you already said that there are UFO experts who believe that the phenomena are best explained by terrestrial events. And I don't think anyone seriously dispute that there may be technologies on earth that the general public doesn't know about.

Professor Hynek was one such UFO expert. Your last sentence, though, is rather naïve.

So did he say it positively was a space alien or not?

Already explained. If you can’t grasp the explanation, that’s not my problem.

Okay. Part of your inference that it may have been a space alien depends on the perceived performance of this thing. How were you able to measure its distance away from you in the sky with nothing to provide a frame of reference?

Easy. They emerged from behind a mountain I know very well, where I used to train as a runner, and it is the most prominent mountain in the area. I calculated the distance between that mountain, where they emerged, to where we were, and I know they took less than a minute to reach us. It may have been 30 seconds, but I calculated on a conservative figure, which means they may have been travelling at even faster than Mach 2. I have also seen Air Force jets fly over the area, and they would be like slow coaches by comparison, naturally because AF jets don’t attain supersonic speed during fly overs.

So what you're saying is, they may sincerely believe in something and yet be mistaken.

Possibly. Or it may be a deliberate “enhancement”. It is a fact that MacArthur spoke of these things, but I would not condone a deception, if that it what happened. I agree it would reflect badly on their credibility, but that doesn’t, can’t, wipe the credibility of the whole film, any more than Clinton’s “I did not have sex with that woman” could entirely wipe his credibility in every other area. Von Daniken has also been caught out “exaggerating”, and I certainly don’t expect that we will see human perfection in this field more than any other. The trick is to find the truth – not dismiss the whole phenomenon.

No, what they should do is stop taking statements like this at face value, because the premise of the above depends on the author believing an inaccurate account of what Douglas MacArthur said.

What you’re really disputing is when and where he said it, and that’s fine, but MacArthur has spoken of these things on more than one occasion. Maybe the producer was taking some “Hollywood licence”. I’m still investigating the background to this claim about MacArthur, and where this his “voice” came from.

No, you did not force me to do anything. Nor did I force you to respond as have done. Nor did I force you to turn a "disrespectful" statement about an idea into a personal attack.

I invite readers to go over the first page of this thread again, and judge whether I started the “attacks”.

Would the "everyone bow your head and say yes" about Darth J being the most objective poster here be part of that scholarly, polite, respectful discussion.

Go over the first page of this thread again. You know that you came on this thread to cause trouble, and whatever your real ideas may be on the UFO phenomenon, you deliberately wanted to stir me up.

That's why it is taking me a while to get on that. I want to be able to watch it and pay attention, not just look at some snippets here and there.

Do bear in mind that this video is only a “primer”. In my last post I offered you much more substantial information to go on. If you’re going to say that you “haven’t seen enough evidence” to be convinced, then this is your opportunity to look at much more evidence. And no, I don’t expect you to turn into a believer after having read the evidence which I have posted, and will continue to post. There are expert UFO researchers I disagree with, but I do respect the fact that they have done their “homework”. I honestly don’t understand how they draw the conclusions they do, given that we’re looking at the same evidence. I honestly marvel at how Professor Hynek can conclude that all UFO phenomena are of terrestrial origin, especially when we have eyewitness accounts very much to the contrary. One thing you cannot do with this subject is turn it into a black and white, slam dunk conclusion, based on what some have said. This field is even more complex than Mormon studies, and as Warren Aston said, our biggest mistake has been in looking for a “single answer”. There are no "single", easy answers, so that we can proceed with our lives as though nothing ever happened.