UFOs

[RichLB]

Rare or not, once again it does not require aliens to explain Tut or anyone else.

Quite true. But it does call into question some of the data upon which you are basing your non-belief. Remember your claim that both King Tut and Iknaton had normally shaped heads per your DVD's? Also, I was unable to find any information about this head deformity and whether or not people born with it could survive into adulthood. Clearly both Tut and Iknaton did so it's possible their condition is not the one identified in the provided link.

[Gaybutton]

But it does call into question some of the data upon which you are basing your non-belief. Remember your claim that both King Tut and Iknaton had normally shaped heads per your DVD's?

They looked normal enough to me. But normal or not, it still makes nonsense out of your idea that their head shapes had anything to do with aliens. I haven't watched the entire series yet. Are any of these proponents of aliens saying the head shapes are evidence of aliens?

[RichLB]

Are any of these proponents of aliens saying the head shapes are evidence of aliens?

They are adding the head shapes to the body of anomalies which they use to explain alien visitations in the past. Even to me, it seems a stretch, but they are claiming both Tut and Iknaton are alien/human hybrids. If you wish to debunk that conclusion, rather than argue that the malformation doesn't exist (which it clearly does), I think a better retort would be to ask why similar shaped heads don't appear in other cultures where such visitations are hypothesized to have occurred.

[windwalker]

How about some intellectual integrity and presenting an argument in opposition rather than merely stamping your foot and saying, "It ain't so."

Intellectual integrity is the one thing missing in the presentations on the History Channel regarding Aliens.

It is up to those who developed the hypothesis regarding Aliens/UFOs to prove their point, not for me to disprove it. What has been presented so far can be explained by the actions of humans without any extraterrestrial intervention. It is like the kooks who believe in creationism rather than evolution. Nothing you can say can dissuade them of what they want to believe in. Same with those who believe in Aliens/UFOs they want to believe in something that is contrary to main stream scientific thought and principles.
From what I have seen the so-called scientists on the History Channel appear to be nothing but a bunch of self-serving, attention seeking wackos and having a good laugh at those gullible enough to believe a word they say. More power to them.

Obviously Rich, you are having fun with this topic and so am I, but I am not hysterical or stomping my foot! Laughing and pulling my hair out, yes.

[Bob]

Merely proclaiming that the theory threatens prevailing wisdom is not compelling to me. How about some support for the rebuttal argument?

I don't see anyone "merely proclaiming that the theory threatens prevailing wisdom." Let's face it, some people will believe anything especially when there doesn't seem to be a logical or clear explanation to some real or perceived event. As I've noted a few times before, the history of the human race is to come up with goofy explanations to explain that which they don't understand (or, perhaps, don't want to understand) - whether it''s Thor the thunder god, Baboo the rain forest gods, aliens building the pyramids, or whatever. Just because something is not understood ought not to give license to any rational human being to come up with an irrational explanation - in spite of thousands of years of human history to the contrary. I don't believe anything on "faith" either. I understand that you call that a "closed" mind whereas I prefer to use the term "rational." Like Sgt. Friday of Dragnet said: Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts....

As to your repeated requests to many to come up with rebuttal arguments, sorry, I'm not biting. I don't believe aliens have visited the earth and I'm not about to play the game of trying to prove a negative. Until credible scientists say something exist, it doesn't as far as I'm concerned.

[RichLB]

As to your repeated requests to many to come up with rebuttal arguments, sorry, I'm not biting. I don't believe aliens have visited the earth and I'm not about to play the game of trying to prove a negative. Until credible scientists say something exist, it doesn't as far as I'm concerned.

Bob, I have not asked you or anyone else to prove a negative. What I have asked for are alternative explanations for the anomalies presented by believers in alien visitation. I'm not asking you to prove these conjectures, merely provide an alternative way of interpreting phenomena for which I don't have any other way (as unlikely as it is) to explain. So far all I've seen from traditional thinkers is repeated insistence that the theory is beyond their ability to conceive (usually cloaked in Fox News style rhetoric). For those that dismiss the possibility it shouldn't be hard to provide other explanations. How about debunking the "data" provided by believers?

[RichLB]

It is up to those who developed the hypothesis regarding Aliens/UFOs to prove their point, not for me to disprove it. What has been presented so far can be explained by the actions of humans without any extraterrestrial intervention.

Obviously Rich, you are having fun with this topic and so am I, but I am not hysterical or stomping my foot! Laughing and pulling my hair out, yes.

Windwalker, you're right I'm having fun with the thread and glad you are, too. I've got to admit, though, I'm amused that those who reject this off the wall theory keep insisting that the anomalies "can be explained by the actions of humans" but never provide those explanations. Since you, and others, are so convinced those explanations exist I don't see any reason not to provide them. The continued refusal suggests that naysayers may not, in fact, be able to do so and are merely accepting prevailing wisdom as an act of faith.

[Gaybutton]

I think a better retort would be to ask why similar shaped heads don't appear in other cultures where such visitations are hypothesized to have occurred.

How do you know they don't? Maybe they do. I don't accept that everything that can be found has already been found.

If you truly want a viable argument that aliens exist, here's someone I believe had to have come from another planet. It's the only satisfactory explanation:

[Bob]

For those that dismiss the possibility it shouldn't be hard to provide other explanations.

Your axons are getting a bit clogged. If it was easy to provide other explanations, there wouldn't be any unexplained phenomena in the first friggin' place! But (and I'm long past boring myself with repeating the same thing) I am hopeful you will agree that human history is replete with the "intelligentsia" of the given times assigning ludicrous explanations for that which they didn't then understand. We laugh now that they thought that thunder was a god. And, for those that suggest that maybe some of those UFO's are humans from the future visiting us via time machines (probably built by Honda?), we ought to keep right on laughing in my view.

As to which "data" you refer to, it's really, really, easy to use that term but defining what you mean by it is another thing. I think of "data" as observable or measurable facts and I'm guessing that you wouldn't confine the term to those parameters. And I have no clue which "data" you're referring to at the moment in any event. You referring to elongated skulls (haven't you ever read of the practice of binding children's heads to produce that effect?) or moving the huge stone blocks to build pyramids (haven't you seen programs showing how that can be done with tons of manpower, rollers, and levers?) or what?

[RichLB]

If it was easy to provide other explanations, there wouldn't be any unexplained phenomena in the first friggin' place!

As to which "data" you refer to, it's really, really, easy to use that term but defining what you mean by it is another thing. I think of "data" as observable or measurable facts and I'm guessing that you wouldn't confine the term to those parameters.

Well, good for you, Bob. You have finally moved off the position that you are aware of many other plausible explanations for the anomalies we've been discussing. I'm pleased you are no longer excusing yourself with such pap as not biting to try to prove a negative. You are making progress.

Now to the use of the word "data". We agree on the definition and if you wade back through this thread there have been a multitude of anomalies (referred to as "data") which, as you now admit, are unexplained.