UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by Magical Realist, Oct 10, 2017.

  1. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    In the spirit of Maxwell Smart would he go for Little Blue Women?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,453
    Dave, no need to go all round the houses with a strawman, most here know that.

    What people here want to know is, where is the ''compelling'' evidence in MR's posts to suggest the following:

    Are you agreeing MR's posts contain ''compelling'' evidence that suggests those things?
    It is not a question about if UFOs exist. The question is, what ''compelling'' MR evidence on this thread leads to anyone saying:
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2020
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Indeed. You just assume it.

    Noted for the record.

    You don't know what more evidence I'd require, apart from your assumptions that things that seem like alien spaceships to you are alien spaceships?

    I'll concede that some of your videos show things that look superficially like "craft". Once we say "that looks like some kind of flying craft to me" are we done, then? Have we proven at that point that we're dealing with an actual aircraft or spacecraft, just because our first impression is that it could be one of those things?

    Also, you talk about "accounts of ..." which are even less reliable than fuzzy videos and dodgy photos. If somebody tells you, second-hand, "I saw something and I thought it looked like an aircraft of some kind", are we done? That's enough evidence to establish that we're dealing with something Not Of This World? Really?

    Where are the clear photographs and videos of these "beings" you mention exiting the "craft"? For that matter, where are the clear videos of these "craft" landing and disgorging their pilots? Why haven't you been posting any of those, if these things have happened as you claim?

    All anecdotal evidence, isn't it?

    Every time you mention extraordinary manouverability, immense (impossible-seeming) accelerations, and the like, you're talking about powers that seem like magic. I'm correct to say that there's no good evidence that any "beings" possess such capabilities, let alone that they are visiting Earth in their spaceships.

    What are you saying here? That you admit you've provided no good evidence so far?

    Take the Ravenna case that we discussed at length, for example. I provided you with ample evidence that the cops were chasing the planet Venus in their patrol car. You pooh poohed the whole idea and still insisted that it was aliens/paranormal/time travellers/insert latest favorite fantasy here. I provided you with star charts showing sunrise and the location of the planet Venus in the location of interest. I correlated that evidence with the eyewitness testimony. Did any of this make any dent on your belief that it was aliens/time travellers/whatever? No, not one bit.

    Sure! So bring it. Show me your best evidence for "multiple entities existing a landed UFO".

    Nobody disputes that there are intelligently constructed and operated craft in our atmosphere. We call them aircraft and they include airplanes, helicopters, drones and other things, all of which ordinary humans are known to make and fly.

    And they could be kids flying drones or something. Or a hubcap tossed into the air and photographed. Right? What is needed is a proper investigation in each case.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2020
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    On what basis could he do that?

    I think that, on the contrary, he accepts that little green men could be involved, but he is willing to cast his net far wider than that. His complaint is not that it can't be little green men. It's that he thinks (wrongly) that somebody is saying it can only be little green men (or nothing). Nobody is saying that. It's a straw man that just gives MR another excuse to whine.

    I don't think MR is a fan of secret military ops. That would be classified as a "mundane" explanation, and therefore ruled out by fiat. Strange creatures from another dimension though? Much more fun.

    Obviously, not all UFO nuts are the same. Q-reeus, for instance, seems more likely to go for the conspiracy theory, so secret military ops would be more up his alley I'm guessing.

    Nonsense. Are we supposed to bow to MR's insistence that every time we refer to the hypothetical occupants of UFOs we have to provide an extensive list that covers all of MR's previous suggestions as to who "they" might be? What a waste of time. I have no intention of doing that.

    I'm not even willing to concede that UFOs have occupants or "pilots" until somebody shows some reasonable evidence for that.
     
  8. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Your cavalier dismissal of the massed observations and recordings in e.g. the 2004 Nimitz carrier group and far more numerous ones involved in the 2014-2015 Roosevelt carrier group has made it very clear no amount of evidence would ever suffice. Apart from absurd expectations requiring the tacitly assumed to be flesh-and-blood 'aliens' to obligingly parade themselves openly. Whoever they really are, accumulated experience shows pleasing such skeptics naive wants isn't on the list.
    You choose to never admit to let alone factor in that possibility. Doesn't suit your imo perverse mind-games agenda.
     
  9. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Liar liar pants on fire. YOU have repeatedly implied 'assuming UFO's as real craft then 'little green men' are piloting them. Show us the little green men - why don't they show themselves?':
    http://www.sciforums.com/search/40793484/?q=little green men&o=date&c[node]=108&c[user][0]=4402
    Stupid reasoning. Three pages worth of posts containing 'little green men' by you - MOST of which also insinuate a default belief in 'little green men' by MR and/or other 'UFO nuts':
    http://www.sciforums.com/search/40793496/?q=UFO nuts&o=date&c[node]=108&c[user][0]=4402
    'Only' two pages worth of your posts containing that intentionally riling pejorative.
    Of course it's just your trolling/flaming mind-games tactics. Gutter tactics.
    Bad guess. Poor memory: http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3612440/
    To be clear, we are not talking easily explained misidentification sightings of e.g. 'Aurora', a purportedly hypersonic successor to 'Blackbird' SR-71, both of which lack the distinguishing suite of characteristics reported in say 2004 Nimitz group tic-tac encounters, or far more numerous 2014-2015 Roosevelt group encounters.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2020
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    No. One need simply stop using the dismissive straw man of "little green men". It's a cheap shot.

    Just because MR doesn't know logical thinking from a hole in the ground doesn't mean we have to stoop to the same level. We hold ourselves to a higher standard than that.

    Neither am I.

    That doesn't mean we're doing good work here by mangling the opponent's case. That hurts our credibility, not his.
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    This is an attempt at special pleading.
    UFO reports don't get a pass on skepticism just because you're fond of them.

    Ah. Another anti-science type who feels derision toward skepticism.

    The above things could be said about crystal healing, pyramid healing, ghosts and sightings of Jesus on toast. I guess you'll be accepting all those whole-heartedly too, because of massed observations and recordings.
     
  12. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Have you watched any of the recent " Project Blue Book " series on History channel ?
     
  13. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Confused thinking at best. More likely your attempt at cheap shots.
    More nonsense. See my last comment above. That you would lump say 'Jesus on toast' in the same basket with the unparalleled levels of multi-confirmatory evidence exhibited in those US naval encounters speaks volumes about you. As for me being 'anti-science', need I remind you of how many times I have corrected your faulty grasp of physics in particular? Don't make me laugh to loud.
     
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Gets a pass because taste Del

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Gets a pass because taste delicious

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
  17. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,453
    Rubbish.
    Dave, stop trying to tell people how to ask questions of MR.
    Why shouldn't anyone here ask what is so ''compelling'' about the MR's evidence, especially when MR is on record about their origins, and we know what MR thinks UFO's are, craft, that's on record also.

    What has levels got to do with asking MR what is so ''compelling''' about his evidence, in light of knowing his views, is that such a low level thing to do?
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    JamesR asked. I simply clarified.
     
    foghorn likes this.
  19. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,453
    Clarified what?

    That you don't think what MR has said in the past should be considered when answering his next ''compelling'' evidence cut n paste? Groundhog day.
     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    You told me to "stop telling people how to ask questions". I'm not telling people how to ask questions.

    James R asked "Are we supposed to bow to MR's insistence that every time we refer to the hypothetical occupants of UFOs we have to provide an extensive list that covers all of MR's previous suggestions as to who "they" might be? "

    And I'm saying no, you're not supposed to. (It would be an overreaction.) I'm simply saying all that's necessary to stay on the ethical high ground of the discussion is to not put words in our opponents' mouths. Words such as "little green men". It's a cheap shot.

    Frankly, it doesn't matter to me (or likely the rest of us) what is hypothesized to be occupying extremely implausible alleged objects. But I don't need to erect a straw man to dismantle these reports.

    You do what you like. All I did was say I grant the distinction. MR can hypothesize "pilots", rather than "little green men". Makes no diff to me.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    You mean my careful examination of the available evidence (scanty as it is), followed by my assessment that it is insufficient at this time to establish the extraordinary thesis that aliens (or whoever) are invading Earth?

    I invite interested posters to review the posts in question to see what I have and haven't assumed. I'm betting that several of the posts in question, at least, will re-iterate my oft-repeated comment that "little green men" can include any and all of your favorite paranormal things.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2020
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    It's not a straw man. "Little green men" is not one of the things that Magical Realist or Q-reeus would ever rule out.

    Besides, what would you have me write instead? I have used such terms as "supposed occupants" and "beings" and "pilots" and the like, in response to posts that use that kind of terminology. Sometimes I'll put those in inverted commas, since usually we're not dealing with actual evidence for any of those things. UFO cases seldom get to the point of providing sufficient evidence to conclude there are pilots, or occupant beings of any kind.

    Also, these guys are hardly in the position to claim the high moral ground. MR repeatedly accuses me of "making shit up", for instance, which is ironic in the extreme, wouldn't you agree? When dealing with these people, it's hard not to get sucked down to their level. They show no respect, so why should they expect any in return? They make laughing stocks of themselves in public forums. Given that, "little green men" seems like a fairly mild way of highlighting how ridiculous their claims are.

    I have at all times been quite clear on my usage of the term "little green men". I have dealt with the claims that have been put, weak as they are. I have mangled nothing.
     
  23. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Awoken from the crypt again I see - i.e. very delayed reactions. I think the record was 14 days. Anyway...
    Who said anything about 'invading Earth'? Yet another attempt to belittle and stigmatize. Your assessment of US naval incidents, 2004 & 2014-2015 - a comedy of compounding errors - was anything but the result of a careful examination of the available evidence. Absolutely zero attempt to generate a plausible probability analysis. One that would objectively take into account not only the extraordinary unlikelihood that multiple highly trained human witnesses, both shipborne and airborne, initially selected for their psychological stability and all round competence among other desirable traits, would all simultaneously suffer delusions/hallucinations that just so happened to match-up to a given extraordinary scenario(s) 'as though real'. Add in the need for simultaneous glitches in ALL the state-of-the-art military grade hardware that exactly reinforced those 'synchronized human gross failures'.
    And all you choose to do is cast doubt - and smugly wait for your underling followers to chirp in with the usual irrelevant banalities. A few here play by different rules.
    Hahaha. BS will only take you so far, even here at SF. The truth is you only began suggesting 'little green men' was a catch-all container term for disparate possibilities AFTER one of your own pulled you up for using LGM as a cheap shot. Your recent post where that transition-under-fire occurred is above - #4144. If you were honest you would admit LGM is and always has been used by you as a pejorative - a cheap shot. Ditto with 'UFO nut(s)'.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2020

Share This Page