...so UFOs are
demons?
Oy. Where do I begin?
Let's start with the title:
Are UFOnauts ET's, or something else?
You had potential with "something else."
Let's review the facts here - UFOs are so named because they are infact
unidentified. In many cases a "UFO" turns out to be a frisbee in teh distance, a bird, a blown bit of debris, ball lightning, a weather balloon, a hallucination, or any number of explanations. In these cases the object ceases to be a "UFO," having been identified. In other cases there is insufficient information to identify what has been observed.
Think about that
very closely. "Insufficient information" is available to identify what has been observed.
UFOS are shaped like discs, spheres, cylinders, cigars, dumbbells, ovals, eggs, diamonds, cones, parachutes, tops, mushrooms, and hamburgers; all of these shapes occur singly or in groups. They range in size from a few inches to more than a mile in length, and travel fast or slow, with or without undulation, wobbles, zigzags, or sudden changes of direction. They are smooth, hairy, knobby, shiny, dull, every color of the rainbow, and some equipped with optional landing gear, wheels, tripods, doors, and windows. They are completely silent or else they hum whoosh, hiss, flutter, whine, whistle, beep, pulse, buzz, vibrate, bang, blast, roar, or explode thunderously. They stop internal combustion engines, interfere with radio and television transmissions, shock, burn, and paralyze people, and cause them to lose consciousness; or not as the case may be. In short, they are all things to all people. Since 1946 there seems to have been acceleration in both interest and in manifestations.
In other words, you don't even attempt to
define this phenomenon, except for the presence of something unidentified. The
only thing that ties these reports together (which you haven't even bothered to present - you've simply discussed the UFO phenomenon as if we all know exactly what you're talking about. No pictures. No video. No eyewitness description of any observed event.
I may as well discuss the contents of my
dreams last night for all the solid information you're giving.
The only thing, apparently, that is common in all of the unnumbered incidents you're vaguely referring to is that a) there's something in the sky and b) you don't know what it is.
You;re casting your net pretty far, and you're aiming at something so indistinct that you're not even sure it's there.
The non-uniformity of UFOs is in complete opposition to the necessary mass production characteristics of any civilization with a technology advanced enough to visit us.
Unless (assuming the phenomenon is real, which I don't grant for a second otherwise) the "visitors" are not from a singular civilization, in which case variety in design would be expected. Or their means of travel improved, meaning the older, slower models wound up getting here around the same time as newer, faster models that left later but had a less lengthy journey.
Or, of course, the phenomenon of UFOs may in fact have nothing whatsoever to define it except that somebody saw something in the air, and didn't know what it was. Then we would expect all manner of different descriptions and observations, because we're talking about completely unrelated phenomenon whose only similarity is "sky" and "I don't know."
We conclude that our considerations must, of necessity, start with the uncomfortable realization that UFOs have first no physically understandable means of getting here.61
The most amusing part of this conclusion is the necessary but unstated assumption that UFOs are extraterrestrial in origin - an assumption that has not even been attempted to be evidenced in this post.
Of course, that's jus tthe tip of the iceberg. "No physically understandable means?" The author is saying that because (assuming ETs once again, still an absurdity with nothing to back it up) we cannot
currently explain travel from other solar systems, such an explanation is
physically impossible - which of course leads to the "metaphysical" explanation in the eventual conclusion.
But it's also
wrong. We know how to get to other worlds already. It's just an insanely long-term project with difficulties in infrastructure that make it unfeasible for our current civilization - and that's just with current tech. If you point a rocket in the right direction, it will eventually get to its destination...it just might take a few thousand years. And since cryostasis has been proven to work on small animals (if not humans), we have perfectly reasonable "physical" explanations for how an ET would get here.
The observed characteristics of the occupants of UF0s
What observed characteristics? You haven't provided any. No pictures, no videos, no witnesses. Nothing.
violate the conclusions of the process of evolution in accordance to natural laws as applied as a necessary explanation for their (the occupants) existence.
In what way? After observing life here on Earth, I can confidently say that very
little would surprise me in the "bizzare and alien things arising from evolution" arena. Just look at the duck-billed platypus. Or squid. Or octopi. And those are some of the more
normal things evolution has cooked up right here on Earth.
What specific "natural laws" would need to be violated to result in a given form? It;s an easy assertion to make when you haven;t even
described the alleged alien species in teh first place.
Also, it is considered impossible by the laws of physics for UFOs to be from outside our solar system, and all known facts of our solar system stand in total opposition to an extraterrestrial origin from somewhere within our solar system.
Bullshit, as explained above. No laws of physics prevent extraterrestrial visitation, so long as they don't use faster-than-light travel, and even that may have some theoretical workaround that we simply aren't aware of yet (I'm not holding my breath, but only a fool assumes that we know currently all there is to know. Like the author
More seriously, however, there is a significant void in Nicap's file of radar cases, despite the eighty-three sightings it lists. There is not a single sighting by the radars that should be the most likely to spot UFOs, if they really were extraterrestrial spacecraft. These are the radars especially designed to keep a watch on space and to detect even tiny objects. They form a network known as the Space Detection and Tracking System (Spadat), operated by the North American Air Defense Command (Norad). Construction of Spadats was begun shortly after the Russians launched Sputnik 1, to keep a continuous count on every object in space in the vicinity of the earth, especially foreign satellites and spacecraft....
This electronic fence is so sensitive that it has detected objects its small as a six-inch-long metal strap which went into orbit during the launch of an early U.S. satellite....
This raises the important question: Why are UFOs never spotted in space by the radar network designed to monitor the presence of every spacecraft in the vicinity of the earth, but are detected only by ground and airborne radars that can see targets within the earth's atmosphere? 64
Why? Because UFOs are not extraterrestrial in origin!
Finally something more solid than arguments from incredulity and bare assertions! You still haven't linked us to any of this data, but at least now you're bein a tad more specific.
An absence of radar detection is of course not conclusive - even our modern stealth tech can fool radars pretty easily.
But an absence of evidence that should be present if a given conclusion is correct
is evidence that the conclusion
may be incorrect. It is certainly possible that UFOs are not spacecraft.
Which, of course, brings us back to "it's in the sky" and "I don;t know what it is." Which doesn't tell us much.
The remainder of your copy/paste is similar, so I won;t waste time doing a line-by-line over the rest. It;s drivel, of the sort an 8th grader with internet access can come up with given a bit of time, and with less evidence than his teacher would accept in a term paper at that grade level. This is the kind of amusing but intellectually vapid nonsense you hear on Coast to Coast AM.
By the way, you may want to actually name and link to the source. Prevents accusations of plagiarism and such. It also tells me who else I should be mocking.
So, on to
your contribution.
The above footnote is from a book written by an author who is not (at least according to the content of his book) a Christian and therefore does not have "an ax to grind, so to speak, in making this statement. His observation is entirely an objective evaluation.
Perhaps with respect to Christianity, but not to the "UFO phenomenon" itself. Clearly he's bought the line that all UFOs share a cause hook, line and sinker. He doesn;t even
attempt to give rational explanations for UFOs. He jumps
directly from "there's something in the sky I can;t identify" to "maybe they're aliens," and upon having "disproven" this (with such pathetic logic and blatant falsehoods that it boggles the mind, no less) jumps directly to (gasp!) a
religious explanation.
"I don't know, ergo God." Sound familiar to anyone else? Okay, so this time it's Satan. Not a large difference there.
One such potentially telling effect sometimes reported is a dissolving, or disappearing, of the observed object virtually into thin air- a kind of switching off," as it were. Sometimes, the object may instantaneously reappear again later- " switch back on"- and then still later, once again disappear. 71
... angels of Satan, who, as we have before shown, are not unclothed spirits, but possess spiritual bodies which they can render visible and tangible at will.72
...so the author "explains" one unexplained, unevidenced and totally nonsensical phenomenon with
another totally unevidenced and nonsensical phenomenon that doesn't even have living witnesses or pictures or videos, but is instead drawn from an
old book whose otehr claims are if anything even
more wild with even less evidence to support them.
Wow. Why isn't this in a peer-reviewed journal I wonder? Could it be that appeals to popular emotion and "plausible-standing" explanations are sufficient to convince the average idiot, but when given even the most cursory critical analysis with a mind just barely versed in logic such arguments fall apart like the hollow nonsense that they are?
Footnotes 75 and 76 are taken from a book written over one hundred years ago, long before "UFOs" came on the scene.
When the only defining traits of "UFOs" are "It's in the sky" and "I don't know what it is," how can you honestly say that there was
ever a point in time before "UFOs" were "on the scene?" Technically meteorites and comets used to be "UFOs." We just eventually
identified them. And we didn't use the
label of "UFO" until relatively recently.
If we are in the last days, the fallen angels will be more and more active, even to the extreme extent of assumption of physical bodies and intercourse with humans. The movies 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' and 'Rosemary's Baby' are a reflection of preparation for this.
...a science fiction movie is somehow evidence for the bizarre claim that UFO's are actually "fallen angels" who are not actually performing
anal probes, but are instead
raping human beings because we are close to the "end times?"
Yet you (and the original author) have provided no evidence that the mentioned film has any accuracy whatsoever to real life. Nor that "angels" exist. Nor that a phenomenon classified only by "it's in the sky" and "I don't know what it is" has any relevance whatsoever to extraterrestrials or the veracity of ancient mythology.
No evidence. None. Just apologetics, unfounded assumptions, bare assertions of fact, and ridiculously flawed logic.
In addition to all of the preceding evidence,
Evidence?! WHERE?! Not a
single photograph, video, or even eyewitness testimony or
even a description thereof has been included in any of this mess! There's not a single
objective fact to be found here!
there are documented correlations of unusual statistical aberrations, which are common to people involved in the occult, demonology, parapsychology, and UFOo1ogy.
Perhaps like being a gullible fool who is quick to assume supernatural and fantastic explanations for anything they cannot personally understand?
Such documentation and further corroborative evidence linking UFOs and fallen angels may be found in an excellent book on the subject, entitled UFOs: What on Earth is Happening?
At least you give a source, but you don't quote any of the data. You are a
poor debater.
All of the countries in the world are ruled over by fallen angels Under Satan, except one: Israel. Israel alone is ruled by one of the faithful angels, the archangel Michael.
WHAT?!
Based on what evidence? An old story book? Last I knew, Israel was "ruled" but human beings, jsut like all of the other nations on Earth. Israel is "special" and so you assert that they are
actually ruled by a supernatural entity for which no objective exists? A character who has as much of a tie to reality as any random figment of your imagination because not a single objective fact points to the existence of such a being?
To paraphrase Monty Python, if I went around declaring myself Emperor because some moistened bint threw a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.
But you claim that every nation on Earth is ruled by demons, while Israel's super-duper secred head of state is the Archangel Michael.
Wow.
If UFOs are the manifestations of' fallen angels, then we should expect a direct correlation of UFO activity with military conflict involving Israel.
Here's a hint:
Military action very frequently coincides with an increase in "UFO" activity. This is because the military has machines and weapons that tend to fly "in the sky," and very frequently the average person "cannot identify the object" immediately. Everything from bits of debris to airplanes to experimental weapons and planes to classified weapons and planes to missiles to UAEs...
"It's up in the sky" and "I don't know what it is."
What does that sound like?
Since 1946 there seems to have been acceleration in both interest and in manifestations (of UFOs). 80
Oddly enough, this has coincided with an increase in airborne machinery in the forms of weapons and airplanes and weather balloons...and an increased availability of media to communicate such unidentified objects.
As the reader probably knows, the 1973 Middle East crisis was the Arab?Israeli conflict known as the "October War." Most persons even vaguely familiar with UFOs know that 1947 was a banner year. Israel became a nation again on May 14, 1948, following much prior conflict. I did not look for UFO statistics for the time of the other two major Israeli conflicts, 1956 and 1967, but I have no doubt that such statistics will likewise show increased UFO activity.
(sarcasm) No doubt. (/sarcasm)
Let's be honest here:
1) Neither you nor the original author have provided any actual data regaring the "UFO" phenomenon.
2) In the absence of data on UFOs, you and he have "explained" this phenomenon with another unevidenced and unsupported claim. No mechanism was given by which "fallen angels" can duplicate the observations that
you failed to give in the first place. No trace of their passing is shown.
You began with "It's up in the sky, and I don;t know what it is," discounted aliens for nonsensical reasons (like a stopped clock, I suppose you can be right twice a day as well), and finished with "demons." And you throw in a bit about Israel to boot.
You have given no evidence, only bare assertions and unsupported assumptions. You couldn't even come up with a rational and logical argument to discount extraterrestrials - when discounting extraterrestrials is as simple as "show me evidence extraterrestrials have arrived on Earth. No? Okay then." You then leap to "demons" based on vague descriptions and apologetic logic, forcing your textual clues to fit your predetermined conclusion.
This is a classic "god of the gaps" argument. "I don't know, ergo God," or in this case, Satan. it is utterly worthless garbage.
And you couldn't even properly link and cite your sources - you gave no attribution, and even left in the footnote numbers.
Could you make a
worse attempt at an argument? Perhaps if you tried very, very hard?
™ Version 4.2