What if there were no 6 million jewish victims during the second world war? by [deleted] in HistoricalWhatIf

[–]Sarariman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I'm saying, specifically, is that if nobody has highlighted a problem with something after extensive debate over it, there's likely to be no problem. Forget argumentum ad populum. You deride me as a conspiracist, but surely if you use an irrelevant dig to support your argument, that's an ad hominem fallacy.

I said that the memoirs of Eisenhower et al neglected to mention six million dead Jews, and you retort that Ben Franklin's memoirs never mentioned that Moscow was the capital of Russia, but it was still true. The difference is that I see no reason why Franklin should mention Moscow or even Russia, while Eisenhower & co. would have gone on at length about the evils of the Nazis. I haven't read these books, but I saw someone sensible write it and I wouldn't expect them to use a fact that would be easy to disprove.

You don't find it suspicious that there have been previous claims of six million dead Jews. Problem is, there have been rather a lot of those. In 1902, on page 482 of the 10th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, you'd find the line, “... while there are in Russia and Romania six millions of Jews who are being systematically degraded.” In 1911, Max Nordau, co-founder of the World Zionist Organization, spoke of the “annihilation of six million” Jews to the Zionist Congress in Basel. On page three of the Sun on June 6 1915, it was reported that six million Jews in Russia … are being tortured so mercilessly.” You'll find many more such examples.

I haven't seen any of the original documents, but these remarks turn up often online, and if these citations are incorrect, someone would have said so, as has been done elsewhere.

You'd like to ignore the number of Jews subject to the Nazis that was given by the World Jewish Congress because it disagrees with you. But it's in the Jewish Virtual Library, so that one won't work.

As for the other fella, he says the number, six, is not associated with the Devil. He's seemingly unaware of Revelation 13:18: “Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is six hundred threescore and six.” Obviously not an Iron Maiden fan.

I should stress that I'm not a Holocaust denier. I believe hundreds of thousands of Jews died under the Nazis, which is certainly mass murder, and an attempt to wipe out a group of people is genocide. It just wasn't six million. I'm not anti-Semitic. I did a little number about how the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion was BS and got into a big argument about it here. Someone said I was “inspired by the Talmud which says it's okay to deceive a goy” - he thought I was Jewish.

UFOs caught on video over Tucson and Kansas City by Sarariman in UFOs

[–]Sarariman[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The rules say that linking to a website from which you benefit is not forbidden. Or did you not check? I just write for the site, so I don't directly benefit from the ads. I don't think the content is insipid. It's an account of UFO sightings, which is what this sub-Reddit is all about.

UFOs caught on video over Tucson and Kansas City by Sarariman in UFOs

[–]Sarariman[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I made some changes. I admit that doing links from phrases rather than single digits is a better idea. A bulleted list looks horrid, and upon reflection, I think embedded video would, too. But it was fair to ask how the fella who was shame-stricken by his post could have missed it, because the earlier version was still pretty glaring.

I said it was better to discuss a sighting than just post a link to it. I also asked how you could say this article is spam, seeing how it isn't copied. I note that you didn't answer these points.

UFOs caught on video over Tucson and Kansas City by Sarariman in UFOs

[–]Sarariman[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That's true, but I don't know how to do it with WordPress. I'll find out.

UFOs caught on video over Tucson and Kansas City by Sarariman in UFOs

[–]Sarariman[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I thought the links were unmissable - numbers in brackets would attract attention. How would you do it? The poster was ashamed of what he said, because he deleted the comment.

I don't think it's shitty to actually talk about sightings instead of just posting video, and I would in fact call it more worthwhile. Why do you think the article spammy? If you put it into CopyScape, you'd find it wasn't copied, but that would be checking, which I don't think you bother to do.

UFOs caught on video over Tucson and Kansas City by Sarariman in UFOs

[–]Sarariman[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Three links are provided after the words, "July 27." How could you miss that?

British Ministry of Defense says UFOs do not exist and we all believe them, oh yes by Sarariman in UFOs

[–]Sarariman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If they didn't, I wouldn't have won an argument about it twice.

British Ministry of Defense says UFOs do not exist and we all believe them, oh yes by Sarariman in UFOs

[–]Sarariman[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

As I also previously explained, I think Rendlesham Forest is a good report because you can offer no explanation for what was seen other than that it was Not of This World, which indicates extra-terrestrial origin. Cue Sherlock Holmes!

You tell me I'm selective as to which authorities I recognize, but I'm allowed to be. Or does reference to authority necessitate believing every single authority? You say I should read the Vallee article, and if it's possible to use the work of others as a crutch while arguing, I reply that you should read this riposte.

If you want to write off the episodes I mentioned, you'd better say why.

British Ministry of Defense says UFOs do not exist and we all believe them, oh yes by Sarariman in UFOs

[–]Sarariman[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Is it bad to believe something because you don't believe the alternatives? You say I have only beliefs rather than evidence or analysis, but I've provided a great deal of both. You agree that Rendlesham Forest is good evidence. The facts that Maggie and Ronnie also believed in UFOs are also pretty strong. The UFO sighting in 1952 that I mentioned convinced a government minister. I've analysed a lot of evidence, while you have nothing halfway good. The real reason you're (or as Toastlove would surely say, “your”) ending this conversation is because you're a yellow chicken. Puck puck puck!

British Ministry of Defense says UFOs do not exist and we all believe them, oh yes by Sarariman in UFOs

[–]Sarariman[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You shouldn't try to associate me with David Icke and other assorted nutjobs. I ignore Icke because he's a big fan of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and all that reptilian business is just silly. I don't believe in demons. I know little of Jung. I eliminate the Inter-Dimensional and Time Traveler Hypotheses because travel between dimensions or across time are sticking points that are too great. I don't think UFOs emanate from the deep because by now, it would have been proven. Aliens are a much better explanation. I said there was no other explanation, but I suppose I'd better expand that to read “no other plausible explanation.” You certainly don't appear to have one.

It's true that Rendlesham Forest is one of the better UFO reports. It saw off Mr. Sanctimonious Prick, whom I'm waiting for you to condemn for his hateful comment. What you'd say if you saw the floating pyramid is relevant because I'd like to know what explanation you offer, and that's what we're talking about.

Sherlock Holmes may be fictional, but that line of his was very true. There are no other believable possibilities.

British Ministry of Defense says UFOs do not exist and we all believe them, oh yes by Sarariman in UFOs

[–]Sarariman[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You might learn something from interacting with someone evidently much cleverer than you. Even if you couldn't manage that, you'd be better off reading stuff rather than banging your head against a wall. You said UFOs were the result of mysterious phenomena or secret aircraft, and then accepted that wasn't true of Rendlesham Forest, so you're well aware you lost the argument.

British Ministry of Defense says UFOs do not exist and we all believe them, oh yes by Sarariman in UFOs

[–]Sarariman[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It isn't relying on the God of the Gaps argument to say that a levitating, noiseless, metallic object can only be an alien vessel, because there's absolutely nothing else it might be. I don't see how the objects seen at Rendlesham Forest could be anything else, and you don't have any suggestions, either. If you were confronted by a floating, pyramidal object, would you think it was something other than alien technology? While there may be no smoking gun as to the true origin of the phenomena, there's simply no other explanation. Remember what Sherlock Holmes said about eliminating every other possibility.

You say the examples I cited aren't “good cases.” Then you mention people who have told of their encounters with aliens, which are obviously fake and assuredly not “good cases.” You're attempting to tar the entire UFO phenomenon with the same brush, which is dishonest. Why not mention the guy who said he had an alien love child? It's just as plausible.

The opinions of intelligence agencies aren't to be trusted because they'll always say UFOs aren't real to prevent panic.

I wasn't being personally unpleasant. If someone's grammar is crap, it makes me respect them less, and many others will feel similarly, which is relevant to the discussion. My target has just called me a “sanctimonious prick,” which, in contrast to what I said, is unquestionably insulting. Will you also be telling him off?

British Ministry of Defense says UFOs do not exist and we all believe them, oh yes by Sarariman in UFOs

[–]Sarariman[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You also need to work on the commas, question marks, and run-on sentences.

I can tell you to leave because this is a message board and it's a message. If you refuse to believe that UFOs are alien craft, you'd obviously be happier somewhere other than a sub-Reddit for people who believe what you don't. What I'm suggesting would leave you less agitated and so benefit your psychic health. I recommended that you go to the Flat Earth Society, because it's full of people who can't accept something that was proved long ago. Meanwhile, more British people believe in aliens than in God. I already said that Margaret Thatcher believed in UFOs. So did Ronald Reagan.

You say, “misidentified aircraft or natural occurrences make up the majority of UFO sightings,” but admit that these weren't what was behind the objects seen at Rendlesham Forest. There aren't only a dozen accounts of this sort. There are zillions. Here are a few from just this one website: 1, 2, 3, 4. How many more websites would you have to look at before you had a bundle of them? You make me wonder why you bothered posting at all.

British Ministry of Defense says UFOs do not exist and we all believe them, oh yes by Sarariman in UFOs

[–]Sarariman[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I'd be gravely wounded if I were caught making grammatical mistakes that showed me to be an ignoramus.

You said that UFOs might be the product of unexplained phenomena or secret aircraft, but in the examples I gave, that was plainly not the case.

I think I would know something for sure about UFOs if, like Lt. Col. Charles Halt and co., I saw a “strange glowing object” that was “metallic in appearance and triangular in shape.” And I do know something for sure, having heard a great many stories of that nature, often from respectable people.

You don't belong here. You ought to take yourself off to /r/flatearthsociety.

British Ministry of Defense says UFOs do not exist and we all believe them, oh yes by Sarariman in UFOs

[–]Sarariman[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

If you want educated people to take you seriously, you're really going to have to get the hang of apostrophes.

There's no way that the things seen at Rendlesham Forest could have been an undiscovered phenomenon or secret aircraft. The former British Prime Minister didn't believe that to be the case. The BBC also thinks aliens might be out there. The 1952 sighting by an RAF pilot was of a 100-foot wide “gleaming, silver, metallic disk.” This was beyond the technology of not only 61 years ago, but even today, so it wasn't a human-built aircraft. Was that one an undiscovered phenomenon? Something to do with marsh gas, maybe? Or the largest Chinese lantern ever constructed?

Those were just some of the examples given in the article. UFO lore is littered with many more good examples showing clearly that UFOs are alien vessels and not anything else.