The Star-Ledger has a weekly insert called “Homefinder”, and it’s often good for a laugh, if only because some of the prices are so unrealistic. (It’s a sad, bitter laugh sometimes. . .) Now, one of the features at the front of the insert is a listing with photos that classifies three separate properties in price order, titled “First Time”, “Move Up”, and “Arrived”. The implication is that as homeowners move up the ladder of financial success and social prestige, their home prices and locations will reflect the improvement of their status. Of course.

I’m sure I’m not alone in the thought that this takes place over time, in a linear, non science-fictiony way. Like, as the homeowner “moves up”, he or she also ages proportionate to the years that have passed. Assuming this is true, one of today’s triad of properties was humorous, indeed.

The first home is irrelevant, clearly a starter property aimed at young people with children or planning on children. The second one, the “Move Up” property, is a 2800 square foot, three bedroom, three bath home for $429,900 – it’s in an adult community. If the adult community is the “Move Up”, then the “Arrived” would be, what, a nursing home? Better be a pretty darned fancy-pants nursing home, I’d say. But no! The “Arrived” property is a five bedroom, one and a half bath colonial with a detached garage and full basement. . .and an excellent school system!!!

Hubby and I were lucky we weren’t drinking our coffee at the time, so nothing icky got snorted all over the kitchen. We’re picturing pregnant old ladies. . .new technology allowed a 67 year old woman to give birth, it’s only a matter of time until 80 year olds can do it, too! And just imagine – you know how hard it is to get around during that last trimester, right? You’re huge and unwieldy, waddling about, but imagine how much easier it would be with a walker! The first person to patent a combination walker/stroller will make a mint!

OK, maybe this is just funny to me. I am easily amused, after all. And very visual. And it was early in the morning.

but now I have to. OK, the fellow with all the crazy ideas I mentioned a few posts back is here. I was going back and forth about whether I would try some fisking, even though most of the stuff he says has been scientifically refuted in bunches of places. I figured I’d put it into a word file and let it percolate in my mind for a bit, so I went back to his site to capture it. I just want to give you a little preface, a quote from the post that first got me irked:

This confirms was I was saying in my earlier post (below), that naturalists like Dawkins who are not reigned in my religion will believe in anything.

and he brings in G. K. Chesterton to reinforce this idea:

GK Chesteron said: “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything.

Now, turn down your irony meters so they don’t explode on this one. I’m just gonna let this whole thing spew out at you all at once. . .ready?

My theories on Skyfish and UFOs
About why no one has found any skyfish carcases.
In one of the articles I linked to in my last post on Skyfish, it said that someone actually found a dead skyfish, but it quickly turned into a goo and then it quickly evaporated.
My opinion on is that skyfish are more like a jellyfish than bird, and perhaps receive all their energy from the sun, and their bodies are constituted with minimal material matter.
That would go a long way in explaining how they could flit about at 300kmph, and be so transparent as to be invisible except under exceptional conditions (e.g., slow motion video, or seen at sunset while a person is looking straight up). Another theory of mine is that they are a purely spiritual animal, or an animal with a life force but no body. Yet another theory of mine is that it would seem plausible that if God could create many animals similar to man, he could also create a whole class of animals similar to angels during the Creation Week. Perhaps most genuine UFOs are just animals on the angelic order. Most UFOs sightings are harmless, but the sinister ones would be demonic. Thus, the harmless UFO sightings are of animals on the angelic order, the sinister UFO sightings are demonic, and the good UFOs like the ones Ezekiel and other O.T. prophets saw are angelic in nature.
Posted by Yoel Natan at 11:31 AM 0 comments

I saw a rod, or skyfish, with the naked eye on about 1 Oct 2002
I was outside doing situps behind my house on the driveway, and I saw this strange orangish bird fly east not more than 40 feet up.
It flew like a cuttlefish swims, but it wasn’t going more than 20 miles per hour, I’d guess. I thought it was going fast for its mode of flying, though.
It was about 5PM or so, and the sun was getting toward the horizon, so I thought that either the strange bird was white and the sunset made it look orangish, or else it was orangish.

Not able to describe what I saw adequately since it was so strange, I told relatives that I saw a bird that was a cross between a bird and a butterfly. They reckoned I had seen a Hummingbird Moth Hawk.
I looked that up but was unconvinced to say the least:
Sphingidae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawk_moth

Now that I think about it, I should have just made a drawing of it.
Better late than never, as the saying goes. Here’s a picture:

[picture omitted]

You can see that what I saw quite clearly is different than what other Skyfish look like from pictures and video, though these show differences, too. Thus, I assume there are myriad types of Skyfish. I’ll call mine the Figure 8 variety.

Anyway, these skybirds fly so fast that few people have been able to see them with the naked eye. They just see streaks of light, or a blur. So my specimen must have been strolling along! They do suggest having the camera in the shade while pointing it into the sunny sky, and I was in the shade looking up, so that partly explains my sighting.

The bird I saw was about a foot long and shaped like a figure eight. It undulated its “wings” or “appendages” for lack of a better term. It’s body, minus the wings, was tubular. What made me think of butterflies is they have tubular bodies and wings that are thin and lack bones, but the size and apparent weight made me thing of a bird.

So, Mr. Pot, if it’s atheists who are so easily bamboozled, how the heck do you explain your own credulity? Wowsers.

(I didn’t go out of my way to figure out how to get the picture into the blockquote. Just not worth the effort. I also cut out his links to supposed “proof” at the end. If you are really that much of a masochist, click the link. Don’t say I didn’t warn you, though.)