UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Notice the video is just chock full-of artifacting.

Check this out.


The above video is filmed under ideal conditions, and yet it still manages to completely misrepresent reality. Video footage is not to be taken at face-value.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not "my" criteria. Objective is objective - i.e. you don't get your own criteria.

One of the most important criteria is that we don't start with the idea that an observation is "nonmundane".

See above. We don't assume that it's nonmundane.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One slippery eel you are. Nonmundane automatically implies having passed through a rather strict filter, so yes one can assume what's left is very likely to actually be nonmundane.
Anyway you choose to 'argue' via circularity and dictionary. A sterile pursuit.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Exactly. Therein lies the failure to be objective: a foregone conclusion.

 

Yes. Yes. Keep up your proven skill at distortion and misrepresentation. It seems to give you a sadistic buzz. Sadly.

 

I see that, with no refutation of the argument, you are reduced to an attempt at a refutation of the arguer instead.

Thus, the problem with non-objectivity of "filters" stands uncontested.

 

That's the point: your filter is not strict enough. You can not legitimately call something "nonmundane" (which is roughly equivalent yo "unearthly") unless you have exhausted all possible channels of the mundane.

Nothing circular about it. I'm just trying to explain the basic terminology, which you don't seem to understand.

 

SF debunkers choose to dismiss by way of cheap philosophizing, and setting the bar ridiculously high, the overwhelming body of evidence now amassed for reality of UFO/UAP/AAP encounters. That by way of their observed and/or recorded extraordinary behavior and effects are very nonmundane. Intelligent control being the common thread joining all such.
Once the dust has settled after the long anticipated June disclosure event, sensible discussion may be hoped for. Unlikely though.

 

Science sets the bar high.

 

Have you ever got around to actually watching - all the way through - the now classic YT vid:

If not I strongly suggest to watch it in it's entirety now. Let us all know your 'scientific' critical evaluation - pointing out point-by-scientific-point any obvious fully integrative mundane explanation(s). Ones that aren't overall ridiculously improbable. Please don't disappoint by dodging this golden opportunity to blow those 'supposed' UFO/UAP/AAP encounters right out of the water!

 

I'm on a public library computer and can't watch videos. In any case, I don't debate with videos. Bring the points here.

 

This video is about twelve steps removed from the raw evidence. It contains what the authors want you to believe and does not contain what they don't want you to know.

Shows made for TV/internet entertainment are, by definition, not objective; they are narratives.

This kind of offering completely torpedoes any credibility you might have. It tells where you set your bar. Apparently 'Made for TV' shows are good enough for you.

How can you be so gullible?

 

Not true. I've watched many a TV documentary that was based on facts and provided an objective view of events and phenomena. Even science relies on the documentary format to educate and inform.

 

They include facts, but that does not mean they include all facts. They are telling a narrative, using facts that support it, not facts that don't. (Which is exactly what I called attention to about the book I'd read.)

The video Q posted is definitely not objective; it's telling the narrative viewers want to hear.

But again, it's OK if you want to accept that as your bar. You've mentioned this before, that you take UFO TV shows at face-value. The rest of us don't. If that means you think we're needlessly skeptical, that's OK too. But you'll have to accept that it means we don't consider your offerings to have anywhere near sufficient credibility.

 

The narrative is fact based and is not obligated to provide alternative views. The documentary Cosmos was based on a narrative of facts without including opposing beliefs because the facts support the science. Same with other documentaries. When the facts support the narrative, the narrative is reliable.

I accept that you are in denial about the ufo phenomena based on the fact that you read about several compelling accounts in Leslie Keanes' book and dismissed them all because one fact was omitted from the Rendlesham case. Seems to me you are just looking for excuses to dismiss and not really interested in the truth of what happened.

 

Note that "based on facts and actual events" is a label applied to movies, but that does not mean the movies are not fictionalized and still telling a dramatic narrative.

Exactly. They are not objective. Exactly the point SSB is making.

You are certainly entitled to set your own bar at stories that are designed to sway the credulous.

Not when facts are left out such as
- his notebook with diagrams did not appear as part of his narrative until several years later, when he was tapped for a talk show, and
- his own reports contradicted each other - in one he was chasing lights through a forest and made no direct encounter, but then later, he actually had 45 minutes in direct presence of it and touched it - oh did he forget to mention that?

Such direct contradictions mean that the narrative is not reliable - even for the Holy Grail of incidents: multiple military witnesses (that you claim are virtually infallible and never lie), in direct, extended contact and very well documented.


But again, you are certainly entitled to set your own bar. Witnesses that directly contradict their own reports may be fine for you. It's just not good enough for the rest of us.

 

Charging the producer of that documentary with a deliberate agenda of deception. And you just know it somehow? The motive for that is?

I'm Gullible? To accept consistent, concordant recounting of extraordinary events from highly trained and qualified and experienced ex-servicemen that received zero monetary gain by giving those interviews is being gullible? No. Instead you are essentially accusing them all of gross incompetence and/or synchronized account delusional and/or flat out unconscionable liars.

Each of the four interviewed, and quite a few others besides since, have undergone numerous additional one-on-one interviews and all have stuck to the same account every time.
I'd love to have you in a locked room with them together and watch as each are handed a transcript of what you wrote here. That would generate an interesting 'conversation' I'm sure.

 

With Q-reeus freedom of speech is about... You're either with us or we ''punch the shit out of you''
Is that censorship?

 

No idiot - it's called use of colorful language. But thanks, in a sense, for again revealing your hand as forum hierarchy approved sock of sweetpea. Exactly - and I mean exactly - the same MO. Off you go - trawl away hi ho. More 'treasures' await.

 

Oh my god yes. Reading the rest of your response, I'm now convinced - dangerously so.

You need to turn off your TV and internet and go out and meet real people before you come to harm from your utter lack of guile.