> I took a rare opportunity to reply to one of your
> posts to which I have a different opinion.
> All the suggested natural phenomena actually
> exist. No question.
No one is suggesting otherwise, obviously, the question is do these phenomenon, let alone just a "sun dog", account for all of the events described which in my view the answer is no. This does not mean it was UFO's, maybe it was, but just because there is otherwise no mundane explanation does not mean we are required to "settle" just for the sake of having an explanation to not have to deal with the discomfort of admitting as of now we do not know.
Regardless, by the same token, despite where one believes they come from (*sigh*), UFO's also "actually exist". No question. Ergo there is a modern context to draw from that give older/ancient accounts a credence they would otherwise not have.
> Surely with all your reading, including
> particularly ancient "sacred" texts with a
> religious flavour you have discovered that humans
> lie, exaggerate embellish, guess, and often are
> mistaken etc. You see it here every month.
Of course, but why do you assume such reports, specifically of unknown flying objects, would always be "lies, exaggerations, embellishments, guesses or mistakes"? I don't think these people were lying:
1952 Washington, D.C. UFO incident.
The Washington, D.C. sightings of July 1952, also known as “the Big Flap,” hold a special place in the history of unidentified flying objects. Major American newspapers were reporting multiple credible sightings by civilian and military radar operators and pilots—so many that a special intelligence unit of the U.S. Air Force was sent in to investigate.
Do yourself a favor and spend some time with these things. Tin foil hat not required.
Surely you can distinguish between the credibility of religious claims of supernatural events and eye witness reports of sightings of unknown flying objects. Just as the credibility of UFO reports themselves need to be distinguished.
> I would be far more impressed if a Nuremberg
> search party went on an expedition of discovery
> and they found the wrecks of some strange huge
> metallic objects scattered in the region , that
> they were unable to cut or move , so they built a
> barn around them as a museum, and are still in
> Germany to this day!
You think a museum would have been built around alien technology? That would be impressive. I have thought about this as well, however, and it would be prudent to look for evidence of what it was that supposedly crashed to the ground there. Maybe it has....
> But of course never is there any ordinary Joe Blow
> that can produce a recovered and kept obviously
> other worldly object
Why would you expect there to be? Or to know there was...?
> which surely would exist if
> these outer space nutters chose to have a battle
> in little ol' planet Earth.
> Zero tangible evidence.
You are absolutely correct. There is no tangible evidence known that UFO's fought and/or crashed in Nuremberg in 1561 nor are we certain what was actually witnessed. All we have is an interesting report about an unexplained event which to the witnesses at the time appeared to involve flying physical objects of various shapes engaged in some sort of "battle". I do not know what this means, but I do not require an explanation that does not fit just to have one which by the same token does not mean I accept the alternative must therefore be "UFO's". I am just open to the possibility it could have been. Or not.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 25-Jul-19 02:02 by Thanos5150.