E.Ts

[osprey]

Apparently, it's both. I did some reading about them though, and apparently it's very likely that they are simply headlights from a nearby highway.

[Caoimhin]

There's good evidence that Ufos have visited us in the past. My friend told me that he saw on the history channel that the acient egytian heiroglyphs showed beings flying in the air in space crafts. The gods that they worshiped had large and oval heads.

They all just look like cave paintings or hieroglyphs and the like to me. Even that one at the very bottom that looks like a spaceship. If you look at it closely it can resemble a very stylized eagle, kinda like those found in Mesoamerican cultures. Personally I voted "I don't care," because either way I just don't care.

[Segovia]

Debunk this skeptics.

In 1897 in Arora Texas, there was sighted a cigar shape object that crashed into a windmill. In the crash debris there was found a dead piolit. Keep in mind that this was 6 years before the creation of the airplane by the wright brothers. Anyway the towns people buried the piolit in a unmarked grave and dumped the debris in a well. When they discovered that water extracted from the well caused sickness, the townspeople decided to cover the well.

[osprey]

Debunk this skeptics.

In 1897 in Arora Texas, there was sighted a cigar shape object that crashed into a windmill. In the crash debris there was found a dead piolit. Keep in mind that this was 6 years before the creation of the airplane by the wright brothers. Anyway the towns people buried the piolit in a unmarked grave and dumped the debris in a well. When they discovered that water extracted from the well caused sickness, the townspeople decided to cover the well.

Pics or it didn't happen. You can't believe everything you read.

[Segovia]

It was in 18 frickin 97 Cameras back then took over a minute to take. Use your head!

[nickspoon]

It was in 18 frickin 97 Cameras back then took over a minute to take. Use your head!

Which means that any story from back then, without sufficient written corroboratory evidence, should be taken with more than just a pinch of salt.

[Gecko]

It was in 18 frickin 97 Cameras back then took over a minute to take. Use your head!

Which means that any story from back then, without sufficient written corroboratory evidence, should be taken with more than just a pinch of salt.

A dash of salt, then?

Or, in my ever-so-humble opinion, roughly one metric shit-ton of it.

[Æron]

Use your head!

[Dr. Sticks]

err, it's not weird that people threw garbage in their drinking water, and then got sick after drinking it. The article doesn't say whether the apparatus was wooden or MEHTUL, but I think it's safe to say that it was probably dirty, or was made of material that would be harmful to humans if submerged in their well water.

as for the flying object, well that could have easily been catapulted rather than "flown"

[klimt]

err, it's not weird that people threw garbage in their drinking water, and then got sick after drinking it. The article doesn't say whether the apparatus was wooden or MEHTUL, but I think it's safe to say that it was probably dirty, or was made of material that would be harmful to humans if submerged in their well water.

as for the flying object, well that could have easily been catapulted rather than "flown"

or even easier to have been some crackpot inventors home build airship...which would fit the description and the timeline.

[Muninn]

It was in 18 frickin 97 Cameras back then took over a minute to take. Use your head!

Which means that any story from back then, without sufficient written corroboratory evidence, should be taken with more than just a pinch of salt.

I don't believe Roger's little story from what he said so far but this comment is a perfectly distressing attitude of our times.

[nickspoon]

I don't believe Roger's little story from what he said so far but this comment is a perfectly distressing attitude of our times.

I am a firm believer in extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. "Bill the farmer went to town on a horse in 1884" I will happily accept without a second glance; "there was a small peanut war in the village of East Cromley in 1912" would require a couple of corroborating testimonies or acceptance by a respected historical body. "Aliens lived in my back yard in 1742" is something which I wouldn't accept without significant corroboratory evidence and published papers.

I don't think it's dangerous to be sceptical; merely sensible. One can't believe everything.

[Dr. Sticks]

yeah, I do agree with you Jack that people care way too much about "seeing when they believe" and "having definitive evidence". It is important to stress evidence and proof in certain situations, but a whole you should develop an idea of sources that are "generally true" and sources that are "generally false" based on their integrity, and take people for their word rather than insist that someone's lying simply because you didn't see the events they describe personally.

[nickspoon]

If anything is worth my belief it should be scientifically testable. If fairies, dwarves and spirits exist, then science should be able to find them. If it cannot, then for all I care they do not exist because I have no evidence to suggest that they do. If strong evidence arises for the existence of such things, then they become 'scientific' and I would be happy to accept their existence.

If you are referring, obliquely, to the discussion we had about alternate dimensions and drugs and such, my position is that I refuse to believe that the hallucinations which these people perceived are of real things unless the results are inexplicable via more conventional methods. I am of the opinion that it is a purely psychological phenomenon which, if undetectable by other means, may as well be imagined even if it is not possible to prove that it certainly is. I liken it to the purely philosophical question of whether the world exists physically at all. It is perfectly possible that does not - that it is a product of some mind or vast computer - but that does not matter; physical is only as we experience it.

[Muninn]

Previous post was sloppy, here's a better one.

I am a firm believer in extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. "Bill the farmer went to town on a horse in 1884" I will happily accept without a second glance; "there was a small peanut war in the village of East Cromley in 1912" would require a couple of corroborating testimonies or acceptance by a respected historical body. "Aliens lived in my back yard in 1742" is something which I wouldn't accept without significant corroboratory evidence and published papers.

No, I'm willing to bet if there existed a written, drawn and built record that spanned the centuries before cameras and mass media made evidence what it is you'd still be unfavourable to such claims.

The difference here is that while you're ready to dismiss outlandish reports unsuited to contemporary scientific theories and respond in a way to disprove them, I ask how it could be so and am intrigued by new ideas on their own without the constant need to see if they measure up to scientific dogma.

Sorry if that comes off as harsh, I was just reading about Marcelino Sanz de Sautuola.