Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Chariots of the gods: how UFOs left their mark in ancient cultures


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

IGNORED. You are not qualified to say what that hovering craft was - especially when you never even saw it.

 

Have you noticed a distinct disconnect in our communications lately? Hmmm. You're delusional if you think I'm going to discuss it with you, mister cherrypick. 

The thread that I mentioned above was labeled as - NASA admitting what Grusch testified to. But believe me, I'm not going to argue facts with you. Here's the thread NAME
NASA Confirms Whistleblower Claims the Government is Studying UFOs of Non-Human Origin

Well then, you are as equally unqualified to assert whatever you claim you saw was an extraterrestrial craft.

I don't cherry pick. I consider all available information provided and make conclusions based on those items. I don't consider speculative rubbish as it cannot be tested.

I know what thread you're referencing. You are adding content that is not true to that article. That is disingenuous of you.

So, I'll ask again. Who did you report your alleged sighting to?

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Can you quote the bit where NASA refers to Grusch?

nope/

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Trelane said:

Well then, you are as equally unqualified to assert whatever you claim you saw was an extraterrestrial craft.

I don't cherry pick. I consider all available information provided and make conclusions based on those items. I don't consider speculative rubbish as it cannot be tested.

I know what thread you're referencing. You are adding content that is not true to that article. That is disingenuous of you.

So, I'll ask again. Who did you report your alleged sighting to?

1] Well then,: - Correct. Are you asserting I need proof to talk about an experience? I DARE ya.

2] I don't cherry pick: -  You're telling a fib. With the UFO pic taken by the US Coastguardsman, in Salem, you took the word of the photographer ONLY, over the word of many people.
Also, UFO was not a term used then, they used UFOB. UfO came later. And since that source you used has been known to lie before, I'm saying the who; thing was contrived. He never said it.

3] I am NOT adding content. I paraphrased MSN. I did specify "Grusch" where MSN uses the term "whistleblower, but Grush really is the whistleblower that made the announcement to congress/

4] So, I'll ask again: you can ask all day and all of the night. Ta ta

 

I think I might just add you to ignore.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

It gets tiresome to read over and over the same people telling someone who had an experience, whether it is lights in the sky or ghosts or big foot, that they are wrong, people who weren't there but seem to know more than the experiencer.   All of these things are subject to interpretation, first, it is something that is unexplained and usually the experiencer looks for an explanation before they decide on one.   (Usually)  but even if they don't, just decide immediately what their experience means, it is still rude to tell them that they are wrong when you wern't there.

It doesn't even matter if you believe them or not.   Well, maybe, if you don't believe them, you could just walk away instead of arguing about it since you weren't there.

In 1989 Fleischmann and Pons announced to the scientific world that they had discovered cold fusion.  Nobody believed them.

Turns out, they were wrong.  Everybody was right to dismiss their 'experiences' because what they were saying was, frankly, utter nonsense. 

It might indeed be tiresome to read criticism over and over.  Perhaps critics should be content to be correct, and say nothing?  

But some things are not subject to interpretation.  Some things are just wrong.  Impossible.  Ridiculous.  Why is it so terrible to point this out?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

It gets tiresome to read over and over the same people telling someone who had an experience, whether it is lights in the sky or ghosts or big foot, that they are wrong, people who weren't there but seem to know more than the experiencer.   All of these things are subject to interpretation, first, it is something that is unexplained and usually the experiencer looks for an explanation before they decide on one.   (Usually)  but even if they don't, just decide immediately what their experience means, it is still rude to tell them that they are wrong when you wern't there.

It doesn't even matter if you believe them or not.   Well, maybe, if you don't believe them, you could just walk away instead of arguing about it since you weren't there.

DR said:  It gets tiresome to read over and over the same people telling someone who had an experience, whether it is lights in the sky or ghosts or big foot, that they are wrong, people who weren't there but seem to know more than the experiencer.
--------------------------------------------

Desertrat, how are you?!

And I agree with your sentiments, fully. There is that class of people in here that come into the forum to basically disagree with everything. Sceptics.
It's hard to have a converation with people like that. egotists that think they are superior and always correct, always with a better alternative. Then they meet me :P And I don't budge

Good seeing you. I may get out to the Hub soonl.

 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tom1200 said:

In 1989 Fleischmann and Pons announced to the scientific world that they had discovered cold fusion.  Nobody believed them.

Turns out, they were wrong.  Everybody was right to dismiss their 'experiences' because what they were saying was, frankly, utter nonsense. 

It might indeed be tiresome to read criticism over and over.  Perhaps critics should be content to be correct, and say nothing?  

But some things are not subject to interpretation.  Some things are just wrong.  Impossible.  Ridiculous.  Why is it so terrible to point this out?


Now Tom,

when such people are subjected to an incident that has many eyewitnesses to it, a photo, and radar images,  all in agreement,
the incident will inevitably be dubbed "ridiculous". Of course, this wipes out those 3 forms of "seeing" UFO's, which negates all UFO sightings. How convenient

this could actually make a good debate topic

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

1] Well then,: - Correct. Are you asserting I need proof to talk about an experience? I DARE ya.

2] I don't cherry pick: -  You're telling a fib. With the UFO pic taken by the US Coastguardsman, in Salem, you took the word of the photographer ONLY, over the word of many people.
Also, UFO was not a term used then, they used UFOB. UfO came later. And since that source you used has been known to lie before, I'm saying the who; thing was contrived. He never said it.

3] I am NOT adding content. I paraphrased MSN. I did specify "Grusch" where MSN uses the term "whistleblower, but Grush really is the whistleblower that made the announcement to congress/

4] So, I'll ask again: you can ask all day and all of the night. Ta ta

 

I think I might just add you to ignore.

Oh Earl, I'm not going to feed your venom and be disrespectful in return. Let me address these mistakes by you.

1) No, I never asked for proof. However, if you dare me, I have no problem in obliging sunshine. Where's the proof of your tale? lLt me guess none whatsoever. Shocking.

2) it wasn't a cherry pick, I placed a qualifier to filter out the rubbish and narrow the field for analysis. YOU provided that photo. Clearly under the assumption I wouldn't hunt tdown the supporting articles and comments from that photographer which dismantled your proposal. Nowhere in any article associated with that ephoto did anyone state that it was an alien craft. Swing and miss Earl.

3) You stated that NASA confirms Grusch's statement as being accurate. That is not true. You are attempting to be slippery with how you posited this, not a good look on your part.

4) So, you and allegedly other saw this amazing otherworldly craft and not you or anyone else saw fit to report it? Not MUFON, not to any other similar type of agency? That seems a bit curious. But not really. The hallmark of a story or a lie is when the reasonable conclusion or follow up isn't considered or acted upon. 

This is why you fail Earl. You divert or attack the poster when you are challenged to present anything beyond your stories or challenge your opinions. I suppose that's why you disappeared from the BF threads a while back.

Edited by Trelane
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Oh Earl, I'm not going to feed your venom and be disrespectful in return. Let me address these mistakes by you.

1) No, I never asked for proof. However, if you dare me, I have no problem in obliging sunshine. Where's the proof of your tale? lLt me guess none whatsoever. Shocking.

2) it wasn't a cherry pick, I placed a qualifier to filter out the rubbish and narrow the field for analysis. YOU provided that photo. Clearly under the assumption I wouldn't hunt tdown the supporting articles and comments from that photographer which dismantled your proposal. Nowhere in any article associated with that ephoto did anyone state that it was an alien craft. Swing and miss Earl.

3) You stated that NASA confirms Grusch's statement as being accurate. That is not true. You are attempting to be slippery with how you posited this, not a good look on your part.

4) So, you and allegedly other saw this amazing otherworldly craft and not you or anyone else saw fit to report it? Not MUFON, not to any other similar type of agency? That seems a bit curious. But not really. The hallmark of a story or a lie is when the reasonable conclusion or follow up isn't considered or acted upon. 

This is why you fail Earl. You divert or attack the poster when you are challenged to present anything beyond your stories or challenge your opinions. I suppose that's why you disappeared from the BF threads a while back.


Let's deposit this where it belongs.

closeup-man-dropped-the-cans-into-bin-vector-20778320.webp.633d29535f4c0b1c6b6067c95f97b3cd.webp

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:


Let's deposit this where it belongs.

closeup-man-dropped-the-cans-into-bin-vector-20778320.webp.633d29535f4c0b1c6b6067c95f97b3cd.webp

Thank you for validating my final comment. I do give you credit for being consistent.

Anytime you wish to discuss your story further, I'm all ears. :tu:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/5/2023 at 3:39 PM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Astro... I have been doing exactly that for the dozen years I've been here and more. And why is it when people see a UFO, they are...  misinterpreting.  Hmmm....

Because it's very easy to misinterpret something in the sky as being a spacecraft from another world. We have been told all our lives that aliens are flying around our skies. Two hundred years ago you would have told us you saw a witch flying on a broomstick.

On 10/5/2023 at 3:39 PM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Mon ami,,  you're a good writer in here but if it's one thing I learned in here, it's to know when somebody is just salivating, trying to change my mind about UFO's.

I have no hardcore evidence, unlike my father's sighting that had a famous photo to accompany it. And that is why I like to show it.

I have taken several photos of what appear to be spacecraft but they aren't. So photos prove nothing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, astrobeing said:

1. Because it's very easy to misinterpret something in the sky as being a spacecraft from another world. We have been told all our lives that aliens are flying around our skies. Two hundred years ago you would have told us you saw a witch flying on a broomstick.

 

2. I have taken several photos of what appear to be spacecraft but they aren't. So photos prove nothing.


1. And did it ever occur to you that it is also very easy to get something RIGHT. According to you, a person that claims that he saw a helicopter is mistaken! Everyone is mistaken!
(no cherrypicking, now)


 2. The UFO's in the photo prove that you really don't know what you're talking about. Those crafts hovered for 5 minutes or so, and then flew off.
you're sating that your experience must be what everyone else experiences, but you are wrong.

Have a good one, astrobeing.

The-Salem-UFO_1024x1024.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

The UFO's in the photo prove that you really don't know what you're talking about. Those crafts hovered for 5 minutes or so, and then flew off.

Hovered??  For 5 minutes??!! No way!!  That's just not possible...uh...oh yeah...nevermind...I forgot about that time I watched a guy working on one of those huge electrical antennas...sitting on a seat that was sitting on the helicopter landing rails...and he set there and hovered for a good 10 minutes...I kept wondering...who is getting paid more here...the pilot, or the worker?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/5/2023 at 2:34 PM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:
On 10/5/2023 at 7:17 AM, Trelane said:

I have no doubt you believe you saw something. The likelihood that it was an extraterrestrial craft is zero. 

IGNORED. You are not qualified to say what that hovering craft was - especially when you never even saw it.

*shrill whislte*  <yellow flag on the play> 5 yard penalty...the poster did not say what the hovering craft was, he simply stated what it was not.  

`````````resume play`````````

B)

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, astrobeing said:

I have taken several photos of what appear to be spacecraft but they aren't. So photos prove nothing.

Technical follow up question:  Are the pictures and footage of Musk's Tesla orbiting Mars real or fake?  And...subsequent follow up question:  Are the pictures of the moon real or fake?  I have some very intelligent college educated friends that believe they are fake...that the entire 'went to the moon' was a huge hoax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, joc said:

.that the entire 'went to the moon' was a huge hoax.

Remember, there were 6 flights that landed on the moon, so there should be 6 lower-halfs of the lander that get left behind, and 6 american flags, one of which was uprooted on takeoff.
I think they also had a little golf cart to ride around on and that may have been left there.

We'll know someday.

 

 

 

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps
spelling
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:


1. And did it ever occur to you that it is also very easy to get something RIGHT. According to you, a person that claims that he saw a helicopter is mistaken! Everyone is mistaken!
(no cherrypicking, now)


 2. The UFO's in the photo prove that you really don't know what you're talking about. Those crafts hovered for 5 minutes or so, and then flew off.
you're sating that your experience must be what everyone else experiences, but you are wrong.

Have a good one, astrobeing.

The-Salem-UFO_1024x1024.jpg

1837656571_uforockpretending.png.99cc8643ae801ac2ccd5fdec56daf201.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, joc said:

1837656571_uforockpretending.png.99cc8643ae801ac2ccd5fdec56daf201.png


I never saw that version before, and I have no way to respond other than to say, eyewitnesses saw these  "objects" fly away.. They are self-illuminating but they were not always lit up.

The photographer, Shell Alpert, said that when he came back from fetching his camera, the objects had all grown dim. So he waited until they got bright., and then took the pic.

So what can I say?? Those UFO's are no doubt, solid objects.

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:


1. And did it ever occur to you that it is also very easy to get something RIGHT. According to you, a person that claims that he saw a helicopter is mistaken! Everyone is mistaken!
(no cherrypicking, now)


 2. The UFO's in the photo prove that you really don't know what you're talking about. Those crafts hovered for 5 minutes or so, and then flew off.
you're sating that your experience must be what everyone else experiences, but you are wrong.

Have a good one, astrobeing.

The-Salem-UFO_1024x1024.jpg

They're not craft. They're angels.

You can tell because the divine angel light doesn't reflect of cars. 

We've had had so many report of angels that the quantity proves they’re here.

Prove they aren't angels.

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

They're not craft. They're angels.

You can tell because the divine angel light doesn't reflect of cars. 

We've had had so many report of angels that the quantity proves they’re here.

Prove they aren't angels.


A thrill a minute, man.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, joc said:

*shrill whislte*  <yellow flag on the play> 5 yard penalty...the poster did not say what the hovering craft was, he simply stated what it was not.  

`````````resume play`````````

B)

"After further review the 5-yard penalty is reversed as the original statements strongly stated it was extraterrestrial in nature. By rule if the poster does not say the word "extraterrestrial" but implies and would lead a reasonable person to believe that is their assertion. It is therefore deemed their argument and point. Please reset the game clock to "Chariots of the Gods". Repeat fourth down."

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Trelane said:

"After further review the 5-yard penalty is reversed as the original statements strongly stated it was extraterrestrial in nature. By rule if the poster does not say the word "extraterrestrial" but implies and would lead a reasonable person to believe that is their assertion. It is therefore deemed their argument and point. Please reset the game clock to "Chariots of the Gods". Repeat fourth down."

15 yard penalty for arguing with the ref!  I was...ahem...referring to 'you' as the poster, just to be clear...you did not say it was anything, only said what it was not. 4th down

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/6/2023 at 3:29 PM, Tom1200 said:

In 1989 Fleischmann and Pons announced to the scientific world that they had discovered cold fusion.  Nobody believed them.

Turns out, they were wrong.  Everybody was right to dismiss their 'experiences' because what they were saying was, frankly, utter nonsense. 

It might indeed be tiresome to read criticism over and over.  Perhaps critics should be content to be correct, and say nothing?  

But some things are not subject to interpretation.  Some things are just wrong.  Impossible.  Ridiculous.  Why is it so terrible to point this out?

Your example is not an experience, it is an assumption by those scientists made before they had all the data, OR they were selling something, but it was not an experience.   There is a difference from scientists making a false claim or claiming something before all the data is verified and someone telling about a weird mysterious experience they had.  They had the experience, to them it was real.  There could be a plethora of explanations and just saying "it can't happen" is dismissive and rude.    Why are you taking what I said personally?   Are you someone who tries to debunk, denounce and denigrate people who share their expeirences?   Yes, some people make stuff up to get attention, those stories fall apart as soon as someone asks a reasonable question, but a lot of people have unexplained or unexplainable experiences.   

Or do you just need the link to dictionary.com to understand what the word experience means?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/6/2023 at 4:27 PM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

DR said:  It gets tiresome to read over and over the same people telling someone who had an experience, whether it is lights in the sky or ghosts or big foot, that they are wrong, people who weren't there but seem to know more than the experiencer.
--------------------------------------------

Desertrat, how are you?!

And I agree with your sentiments, fully. There is that class of people in here that come into the forum to basically disagree with everything. Sceptics.
It's hard to have a converation with people like that. egotists that think they are superior and always correct, always with a better alternative. Then they meet me :P And I don't budge

Good seeing you. I may get out to the Hub soonl.

 

Thanks.  There is a difference between a skeptic and a debunker.  Skeptics think about things, ask questions and make up their own mind without parrotiong other's denigration.  Debunkers just want to be right and anything they don't understand they deny, OR they have an agenda.

I consider myself a skeptic, I ask questions, but I have had some weird experiences so I may ask questions if I don't understand the details of someone else's experience and sometimes I will point out some logic flaws in other's assumptions of what their experience actually is but I wasn't there so I can't say it didn't happen.   I don't know everything and there are big holes in our scientific understanding of the universe when it comes to non-physical phemomena and consciousness for two thing that scientists have not explored much.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Your example is not an experience, it is an assumption by those scientists made before they had all the data, OR they were selling something, but it was not an experience.   There is a difference from scientists making a false claim or claiming something before all the data is verified and someone telling about a weird mysterious experience they had.  They had the experience, to them it was real.  There could be a plethora of explanations and just saying "it can't happen" is dismissive and rude.    Why are you taking what I said personally?   Are you someone who tries to debunk, denounce and denigrate people who share their expeirences?   Yes, some people make stuff up to get attention, those stories fall apart as soon as someone asks a reasonable question, but a lot of people have unexplained or unexplainable experiences.   

Or do you just need the link to dictionary.com to understand what the word experience means?

As posts go, that one's exceptionally ignorant.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.