UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

lack of

If you had read JamesR's post, you would have seen that the offense was, again, actually:

triggering the rule

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-site-rules.142880/


What makes it plagiarism is that you are not posting with your own contribution; you are pasting someone else's contribution to speak for you.

This is a discussion form, not a video library.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I provided descriptive text with the video as well as an insight into the ufo phenomenon. Exactly how many sentences count as a "contribution"?

I am posting objective evidence outside of my own opinions. In other more objective forums this would be seen as a strength not a weakness.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No one here has been given more direction on this than you. Meanwhile, the rest of us seem to pick it up intuitively, without needing even a single infraction.

Note that infractions aren't given for a first offense - or even a second - or third. You can't claim to be unaware.

Places where videos get posted without discussion aren't called discussion forums; they're called video repositories.

Why not just post in good faith about something you want to discuss, instead of using this place as a video dump?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because the proof of a phenomenon depends more on objective evidence than on any thoughts I may have about it. A video is objective evidence. It is something you can see and hear. My mere words will never have the persuasive power that these videos have.

 

and yet this is a discussion forum.
We can't discuss with the authors of the video; they're not here. You are.

This is a pointless diversion. You know the rules. You habitually violate them. You have no excuse. Stop wasting screen space with off-topic moaning. Post in Feedback if you think you've got a legit complaint.

 

That's why I provided the comment on ufos often splitting apart and remerging, What? Is this not a discussable comment?

 

No they're not. They're called discussion forums. There's nothing less discussable about a video than about a few lines of text, particularly a compelling video of something extraordinary. People discuss videos all the time here. This whole thread is an example of such. Are you somehow impaired in this regard?

 

Well, says you.
The videos don't stand on their own. What is it in particular that you wanted to discuss about it? Why bring it to our attention?

 

It's a ufo. What else could it be?

 

OK. I guess that's all there is to say then.
Moving along.

 

Good. I'm glad you finally admit UFOs are real. On to the next poster...

 

It's unidentified. Yes.

It can't be anything else - i.e. it can't be identified.

 

UFO = "I'm embarrassed to admit I think they're little space buddies." Solid third grade thinking.

 

Right..as in it can't be a weather balloon, a meteor, an airplane, or anything else known. It's a ufo.

 

Yes, it's unidentified - i.e. we can not conclude that it is extraterrestrial, or that it is piloted by intelligent beings.

 

Why can't a ufo be piloted by intelligent beings?

 

It could be - but we don't have evidence to support that conclusion.

 

We have many sightings of saucers and oviods with windows thru which figures can be seen. We also have sightings of humanoid figures exiting landed ufos and re-entering them. We also have numerous instances of ufos behaving intelligently in flight and taking evasive maneuvers. That's good enough evidence for me.

 

None of that is evidence of extraterrestrials.

Your standards are low.

 

It's evidence they are piloted by intelligent beings.