UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Wrong. A UFO is an unidentified flying object. Once you have identified it as a "flying craft", then it is no longer a UFO.

95%+ of them written by credulous fanboys like you.

Why not?

A minute ago, you said some of them are flying saucers. If you know they are saucers, then you're saying you know what they are.

Why does your list not include unusual whether phenomena, fakes, mistaken sightings of the planet Venus, and so on? A moment ago you said you don't know what UFOs are, so they could be any of these things, too.

Give it 5 or 10 years, and Magical Realist will be telling people on the internet that this is a UFO.

 

These UFOs of yours are getting less and less unidentified with every post you make.

Present your evidence that UFOs indicate advanced "technology", if you have any. Where can we find evidence of this supposed "technology"? Where is the evidence of these advanced technological "craft" you say exist?

 

Please tell us what you have done to rule out all explanations other than the ones you have listed.

Tell us how you have ruled out things like fakery, mistaken identification and the like in each case.

 

The answer, of course, is: you don't know.

Pilots?

What evidence do you have that UFOs have pilots?

You've progressed in a series of unevidenced leaps from unidentified things in the sky to technological "craft" with intelligent pilots.

Where is the line of evidence that leads from point A to point B here?

Please don't tell lies. In many individual cases, all of these things have most definitely been ruled in, explicitly.

You will recall, for example, how I walked you through the Portage County case, showing that while the planet Venus was the main culprit in that case, weather balloons and/or meteors could also quite plausibly have been involved.

Where is your evidence that credibly establishes that any UFO is a technologically advanced craft not of human origin?

Time to stop making unevidenced claims, Magical Realist. If you've got anything solid, now is the time to present it.

Pixies appear to be no more necessary to explain UFOs than extraterrestrial flying "craft", given the available data.

If you ever find any good evidence that requires explanation beyond the mundane, please let us know.

 

Magical Realist:

Last time I check, saucers and craft were identified objects.

Are your UFOs unidentified or identified? Please clarify.

Please post one confirmed photograph of an extraterrestrial flying saucer or other extraterrestrial "craft".
Please provide one example of an "account" of an extraterrestrial craft that has been confirmed to be that (with appropriate corroborating evidence of the nature of the craft).

Please post one confirmed set of extraordinary "flight characteristics" of an extraterrestrial craft.

As for vague "effects on aircraft", what are you talking about? Please post one confirmed case of an extraterrestrial craft having any effect on a (human-constructed) aircraft.

As for vague "effects of eyewitnesses", what are you talking about? Vague feelings they had? Or what?

Oh, and ... 70 years, no (good) evidence, as another forum member likes to remind you.

Please post one confirmed case of an extraterrestrial craft doing any of those things.

Often not.

For example, if I toss a hubcap off a car into the air and photograph it, and you don't know what it is, then it's a UFO (according to you). And obviously it requires no pilot. Nor does the planet Venus, by the way.

Wild theories, eh?

1. Police officers chased an alien flying saucer.
2. Police officers mistakenly thought they were chasing an alien flying saucer that was actually the planet Venus.

Remind me which theory is wilder, again.

As for proof, I don't recall you making any effort at all to prove (1), as opposed to (2), in the Portage County thread. In contrast, I made a quite compelling case for (2), as you will recall.

I mean you ought to present some evidence of these extraterrestrial "craft" that you claim exist. You have yet to produce anything remotely convincing.

Please don't tell lies. I have looked at several examples you have put up, in detail. All were found wanting in quite obvious ways. And, according to you, these were your best examples. Ho hum.

 

What do you make of this, Magical Realist?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes it is. It is identified as a metallic disc, for starters.

Would you like a middle category, then?

UFO, PIFO, IFO? (Where PIFO means "partially identified flying object")?

Is this really so difficult for you?

A metallic craft is not unidentified. It has been identified as a metallic craft. You might well want to know what kind of metal, who owns it, what the pilot's uncle's name is, etc. etc., but at least with "metallic craft" you've made a partial identification.

The kinds of UFOs you post about never even get to the "metallic craft" stage of identification, and that is my entire point here. All your claims about some of your favorite UFOs being "metallic craft" with "pilots" is just imagination, pure and simple. You're just making shit up.

Weasel words.

Substitute "interdimensional" or "paranormal" or whatever other term for "non-mundane" you prefer into my posts above. Then try an honest response to what I wrote.

You didn't even bother reading the article you linked, did you?

I asked you for confirmed evidence of extraordinary flight characteristics by an extraterrestrial/paranormal/time travelling/pixie-driven craft, and the best you could produce was an article that says more about skeptical, mundane explanations of what was reported than anything else.

LOL (as you would say)!

Again, I asked for confirmed evidence. You don't know what that means, do you?

You're an interesting psychological study, Magical Realist.

If somebody presents a case to you and gives you incontrovertible evidence of fakery, then you'll quickly accept it's a fake, turn your head away and quickly scoot off to find something you can't explain as fast as you can. After all, there's plenty more fish in the sea, and just because one thing is fake, it doesn't mean everything is fake. You still have plenty of other cases to cherish.

But I have also noticed that, in cases you accept as fake, you seem quite unable to put yourself in the position of somebody who does not have access to the same information you do, and who therefore might believe it is real. We see an example here, where once I tell you it's a hubcap, you can't conceive of the possibility of somebody thinking the photo of the hubcap is a UFO photo.

I think the reason for this inability is that you can't imagine yourself ever being in a position of making a mistake. If you think a UFO photo is aliens/time travellers/pixies, then there's zero possibility you could be wrong, according to you. You would never be deluded by something as simple as a thrown hubcap, you think. And yet, over and over again, I see that you are deluded by precisely this kind of thing, even to you point where you will bend over backwards to insist that the conclusion that you initially jumped to about aliens is correct, even when a quite compelling case has been made that you are mistaken.

One thing you ought to try to do (though given our history I realise the futility of trying to get you to engage your brain) is to ask yourself, in any case, "If I wanted to fake this, how could I go about doing that?" Just that question alone, if you actually asked it, might be enough to eliminate about half of the so-called "evidence" you think is so compelling for aliens/time travellers/pixies. But I know you don't want to even start to think that way. Better not to think at all. Never read wikipedia as far as the section on "Skeptical reaction" or "Criticism". Only read the anecdotes. If evidence ever starts to accumulate to suggest mundanity, quickly move on to something new.

No. They never do when it comes to extraordinary claims.

Will you ever learn this?

All the more reason why they are biased and I am not.

Weasel words. Try again.