Then if you cant define ordinary or even define define , then you cant define extraordinary.

I'v seen many UFO's.

I'v talked to many UFO sighters, they can perfectly describe the term UFO as Unidentifyed Flying Object, unfortunaly their RQ are so low that they force themselfs to think that equals an alien space craft, perfec evidence the utterly stupidity in man.

You're right, I can't. But I don't need to. Ever.

For me, when reading HexHammer's characteristically thoughtful contribution to this conversation, the term "UFO" takes on a quite different, imperative, and very rude meaning.

I am amazed so many find it easy to call others stupid, would you say that every one that believes in a god is stupid?

Seems you totally misunderstand what I'm saying, read again.

I am amazed so many find it easy to call others stupid, would you say that every one that believes in a god is stupid?

Too many does not comprehend the absolute value of words, but merely see words as subjective guidlines. Most people are so naive that they will display irrational behaviour contradicting logic, ethics, morals ..and laws.

By the definition of UFO, means it's an unidentifyed flying objects, meaning it can be a bottle thrown into the air, and people gets a glimps of it, but can't tell what it is. It could be a weather balloon, it could be a new airplane, and most UFO sighters often mistakes sattelites orbiting for being alien space crafts.

The great idiocy consist in the interpetation of UFO ending it being a synominous to an alien space craft, when it's defined as an Unidentifyed Flying Object, as earlier described it could be ANYTHING!! ..but people are so naive and WANTS to belive in alien space crafts, that they interpet it to their belives.

I can see certain of us will on occassions presume the ability of these UFOs to be extraordinary and muse on that possibility, like Caroline. Its human nature, but you cant call them stupid. I wont say they are alien but I would ever cast that possibility away, am I stupid? They say if we rejected 99.9 % as explainable you still have hundreds of inexplicable sightings.

A very good friend of mine and his wife , taking their dogs for a walk in a secluded unused quarry, used for experiments in deep rock drilling, experienced a ball of light the size of football investigating ever nook and cranny of this old quarry for over half an hour. You can give explanations for this sighting but not many stand up to normal logic.

For some reason you are still missing my point entirely.

I'm not saying UFO's can't be aliens, but it DOES NOT nessesarily equal alines, whilst most UFO sighters say it EQUAL ALIENS!

Comprende?

I do understand but are they stupid to assume that. My point is that people see the universe and assume a god, are they stupid?

That is not directly relating to the principle of the nature of my statemen, nor the topic at hand, it deserves it's own topic where we can discuss such matter.

But it is the topic, the ability to reason with your observations. You cant divorce one notion from the other. You called those who proposed from their observations, stupid. Asking you if the godly are less or more stupid, is very relevant to this debate. I assume you cant or wont answer.

Fine, I had hoped it would be selfexplanatory for you, which it seemily is not.

UFO states a plain difenition which UFO belivers disregards, belivers in God does not directly defy any direct definition by their basic belive, but may defy some of the rules stated along with their curan, bible ..sutras ..etc.

It's heartacheingly simple, so I thought a person like you would know.

Each and everyone observes and makes judgements on their observations. Now there are many very fine books on UFOs that give a reasonable argument for the alien connection. Do you believe in UFOs being of alien origin? now do you read the bible? it has a very convincing story stating god exists, do you believe in god? What makes one a fool and the other a devout believer? You tell me?

You claim you have understood my previous posts, yet you do not give evidence of that, at all.

Either you lack comprehension, or just trolling me.

I know very well what you are saying that the word, unidentified, describes the observation and those who say they could be of alien origin are stupid because, it ,the word ,unidentified, conveys we don't know. If you have changed your mind from your first post then you have not clarified your view.

Now you ask a totally different question all of a sudden, you must be a very sleek troll, and I will just put you on ignore.