USOs

Magical Realist:

You misunderstand how critical thinking is done.

I have not retracted any possibility. Rather, I am examining three different possibilities to see which is the most likely and to see whether any of them can be ruled out. In other words, I am spinning multiple hypotheses and keeping an open mind. You, on the other hand ... well, not so much. You made up your mind right from the start. Didn't you?

Right. It can't be a water droplet and a shadow and an alien spacecraft. But it might be any of those things, or something else again.

Why are you not interested in trying to eliminate any of these possibilities? Is it because you decided what it was right from the start?

I watched it. It has a second-hand account given in a voice-over. That's all. No documentation. No interviews with the pilots. Nothing. The "account" you refer to is hearsay at this point in time.

You must be watching a different video to the one I posted above. Your "cylinder", or whatever it is, is just an ill-defined blur. Suggesting either that it is out of focus (perhaps close to the camera), or else that it is actually an ill-defined thing, like a shadow on a cloud, for example.

That would be an inference, not a direct perception. If it clearly had the shape of a plane, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Though, in your case, you never know.

You're quite wrong. Consider how the shadow of an aeroplane looks from the side. You don't see the wings; they are hidden in the shadow of the fuselage.

Do you believe this is impossible? Do you have a rational reason for believing it to be impossible?

The only "account" in the video is second or third hand.

Recall that it is you who claims the object shown is extraordinary. Ergo, it is up to you to establish its extraordinary nature. The default position, as I have so often explained to you, is to look for a mundane explanation. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

You see what you want to see. You want to see an alien spaceship, so that's what you see. The problem is that you won't even consider alternatives. Your mind is closed.

I've made no claim that it is a shadow. Once again, you don't understand what I'm doing here. I am suggesting mundane explanations that have not yet been refuted. If you can refute them, good luck to you. I'll happily reject any hypothesis that is shown to be flawed. How about you?

A few points:

1. You did not provide the account in the video. You just found the video somewhere and posted it here. You have collected no evidence yourself, and in fact do not seem interested in examining any evidence.

2. We are both running hypotheses here. Yours is that this is an alien spacecraft, a projection from the future, a pyramid-powered anomaly, the Ghost of Fu-Manchu, or some other paranormal thing. (You refuse to specify what you think it is, other than it is not mundane.) My hypotheses are currently that it is a shadow or a water droplet.

If I am "making shit up" by running my hypotheses, then you are equally "making shit up" running yours. You see that, do you not? Unless you produce sufficient supporting argument or evidence that makes it more probable than not that this is an alien craft or whatever you think it is, you have not established your claim. If you then go on to insist, despite failing to make your case, that this thing is an alien craft or whatever, then you truly are "making shit up".

Understand?

 

(continued...)

It's not clear to me what you're saying. Are you claiming that the cockpit configuration in your photo is the same as the one in the video, and that establishes the identity of the jet in the video? If so, please make this clear.

Since it's your claim that the "account" in the video is true, it would help your case if you could prove that it is a Mig cockpit. I don't see why I should spend time doing your homework for you. If you think it important to dismiss the claim that it is not a Mig cockpit, then get up and do some work of your own.

You see what you did there? First, you assume there is a "cylindrical craft", which you have completely failed to establish at this point. Then, you assume that said "craft" has pilots, for which you have even less evidence.

I'm sorry, but you won't be able to sneak in assumptions about "craft" and "pilots" with me. You'll need to make a case for them.

You would be willing to concede, I assume, that the object could be a mundane human-operated aircraft - perhaps a US plane, for example? They are cylindrical, after all, especially seen side-on.

The films gives a second or third hand account. It is a film made and posted by people who are biased towards the existence of aliens. Even you must admit that.

Wrong. My speculations have been based on the video footage. I have explained my reasoning clearly in both cases. That is, I have a clear basis for suggesting each hypthothesis.

And you?

I haven't made that suggestion up to this point. Perhaps something will turn up later in the discussion to suggest that might be case. It is, of course, possible that the footage is faked. But there's no smoking gun that I've noticed so far.

You'll admit, of course, that fakery is possible, won't you?

Again, you must be watching a different video. In what sense is the object in the video "sharply defined"? Is looks like a blurry blob to me. Please explain.

I have already discussed the issue of "blue sky". If you wish to discuss that matter, please address the points I made previously about that.

Specifically, a jet could cast a cylindrical shadow if it were banking at an appropriate angle to the Sun. You will, of course, admit that this is possible. Won't you?

Again, you misunderstand the process of critical thinking. I have made no claim that it is faked.

However, I am willing to investigate the possibility. I hope you are, too. Here's what I'll need for a start:

• Where did the footage come from?
• How did it come to be in the hands of the makers of the program from which that excerpt was taken?
• Where is the original footage?
• Who can vouch for its authenticity?

Once you have provided that information, for a start, we will be in a better position - the two of us - to investigate the possibility of fakery. This assumes that no hint of fakery turns up in the video footage itself (assuming other people reading this thread watch it, or you and I re-watch it with a view to finding evidence of fakery).

I agree that the possibility of fakery is not sufficient to establish fakery.
You, in turn, will agree that the possibility that the object is an alien spaceship is not sufficient to establish that the object is an alien spaceship.

Correct?

We'll need evidence for the probability that it is an alien spaceship to consider your claim that it is an alien spaceship serious. Got none? Then you have no argument do you?

I have not dismissed any evidence, as far as I am aware.

What evidence do you believe I have dismissed regarding this particular video? Please be specific.

My position is that the available evidence for your claim that this video shows an alien spacecraft is weak and unconvincing. That's all.

Moreover, tellingly, you have been unable to refute my perfectly reasonable mundane alternative hypotheses, so far at least.

You've now backed off, but you're still claiming there's a "craft" with "pilots". What is your evidence for that? Got any?

You misunderstand the process of critical thinking.

The water droplet hypothesis is just one more plausible explanation that does not require the introduction of space aliens in order to explain the video footage. I'll probably think of a few others before we're done with this.

It's your job to make your case, and I must say you're not doing a good job of it so far. As far as I can see, you have nothing beyond the footage itself to bolster your case. Am I correct?