"???? On top of your computer, on top of the fridge, on top of what? I don't see a description. "
In the previous sentences
There is no description of UFO's in any previous sentences. But if you think that spelling out UFO is a description, then, well, ummm....
Well if it's not from earth , it's extra-TERRESTRIAL.
Which again proves that you are biased towards a UFO not being from Earth. As I show below, there are many other equally valid explanations that are solely and firmly from Earth
Here , we have proof that this in fact was not a weather balloon , or radar anomaly , we have proof that this "UFOs" are in fact a reality.
Nobody denies that UFOs are real. By definition, an F-117 was a UFO for many decades during it's trials. By definition, Elves and Sprites were UFOs until 1989. Both UFOs; both Terrestrial.
and when the human piloted plane was sent to see what those lights were , they elevated themselves until they were out of the planet , and disappeared
Another example of taking an undisputed fact (objects on radar; pilots sent to investigate) and making wild subjective interpretations of the events ("until they were out of the planet"). I'm seeing a pattern here...
So in a scientific way , you would have to conclude that the most logical explanation for this craft , considering their size , behavior , and the fact they they were flying , would be that they were some sort of extra-terrestrial(not from earth) or extra-dimensional(not from our dimension) air craft/ship.
...OR a Terrestrial Aircraft with flight characteristics the public doesn't know about.
...OR a Natural Phenomena such as Elves, Sprite, Ball Lightning, or a yet undiscovered effect.
...OR a Underwater Race of superbeings whose crafts are not from outer space, but from right here on Earth.
...OR an Invisible Race of humans who live among us and whose technology occasionally fails, hence the sightings.
Is there any way to dismiss any of these terrestrial possibilities away in lieu of extra-terrestrials?
"I don't need to flash my credentials to make a point;"
Well thats a new one , you seem to only regard arguments made by scientists and science published articles , that lets me know credentials are incredibly important to you
"that's really the only people I listen to."
LOL , you only listen to scientists with credentials , you don't believe that one yourself.
Orrrrr, it could be that if I'm studying a subject, I'll naturally go to the experts in that subject first? Pretty crazy I know but if the topic is "science", I would naturally post reference from "scientists" whom have credentials (PhD) as representing most knowledgeable from that area.
When the topic is "religion", I would naturally post references from the "religious" whom have credentials (like Father) in that area as representing the most knowledgeable.
And when the topic is "cooking", I would naturally post references from the "cooks" whom have credentials (like chef).
But the original question was that I myself did not need to flash my credentials to make a point. All you are making a statement on is on how I gather my information. But this doesn't mean these are the only people I listen too as you so erroneously assume (get used to that Why_do: erroneously assumed... you'll see it a lot now that I've identified it) I have agreed with you and phemox and nitro and others with no regard to your degrees. I will often disagree with PhD's, MBAs, whatever other credential so even they are not above scrutiny. So credentials just prove that you "might" know something about a subject but it in no way shape or form automatically makes me believe what they say.
So once again you are making a wrong assumption that just because I turn to experts in a field of study for my research means that I dismiss anyones who does not have credentials.
I have contradicted every statement you've made , and wiped my [censored] with your arguments for evolution , and proved beyond a doubt that evolution is a matter of faith rather than science , and proved that UFO's do exist (by your own admittance).
I know that in your mind this is true. And I'm thankful that maybe only one or two other minds believe that above is true.
since you don't have to try to explain what you or scientists don't understand
That pretty much sums it up. Yeaup. If I don't understand, I have no right to explain.
But on evolution and the big bang , well that we have no proof of
You have such a fuzzy concept of "proof" that it is no surprise that you would say in the same thread that there is no proof for the Big Bang or Evolution... but there is proof for Alien UFOs!!!! ROLMAO
Sows what happens when we start to exclusively believing what our minds imagine for us (Extra-dimensional Alien Air Craft) instead of what the world really shows us (unexplained lights).
I thought Einstein was a genius , and he is , but his theory is ultimately flawed.
LOL Classic Comment! I'm going to refer you back to the Crackpot Index and leave it at that.
You should consider pulling your nose away from the science books and look at all the other wealth of ideas theories and evidence out there , you might reconsider what you believe you know
Again, because you can't make your point, you start attacking the person. And again you make wild accusations (that all I read is science books) but have zero evidence to show for it. I see the pattern now... heck I saw it in our first discussions... and you are very clear to me Why_Do... transperant even!
