In defence of space aliens

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

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member


    James R: - unpacks each item made by opponent and addresses them individually with thoughtful analysis or request for clarification...

    MR: - LOLs, makes emotional arguments: 'up-in-arms', 'blows his mind', 'griping' and generally tries to paint opponent as hysterical

    Who's the scared one here?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    According to statistics, there are about 6.8 billion people with cell phones, each one of them having a camera. That doesn't include stationary cameras, such as security, traffic and other types of cameras placed all over the world.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    This XKCD comic has made several appearances in this thread over time, for obvious reasons.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Yes [fool] yes [idiot] yes, [fanboy, and yes[dishonest liar! Well put MR!
    Let me say though that your belief in 'little green men" is not groundless, as most scientists also accept the fact that we are probably not alone and there may well be intelligent life above and beyond our own capabilities. But we also need to remember that at this stage, we do not as yet have any real evidence suggesting life off this planet, let alone having visited Earth. That dear friend is the state of the nation at this time.
    Now in reference to your generally foolish claims and statements in general re UFO's, the supernatural and paranormal....
    Researchers at the Universities of Westminster and Vienna have identified a proverbial host of factors that appear to correlate to belief in UFOs: Gender, politics, religiosity, intelligence, fantasy proneness—even certain psychological disorders, like schizophrenia.

    Studies and polls have found, for instance, that conservatives and religious people believe in UFOs far less than their liberal or less religious peers. Men are more likely to believe in aliens than women. (But women, interestingly, are more likely to believe in ghosts.)
    What is it about UFOs that drive so many people to believe they exist despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? According to a 2012 National Geographic poll, 36 percent of Americans believe aliens have visited earth. And yet, as a concerned acquaintance wrote to Harvard’s Mack in 1994, such visitations “contradict virtually all of the basic laws of physics, chemistry and biology on which modern science depends.”

    Researchers at the Universities of Westminster and Vienna have identified a proverbial host of factors that appear to correlate to belief in UFOs: Gender, politics, religiosity, intelligence, fantasy proneness—even certain psychological disorders, like schizophrenia.
    The children of believers, of which there were several at the hearings in D.C., are also more likely to spot extraterrestrial life, according to parapsychologist Harvey Irwin.

    “When it comes to the Roswell incident, I believe my father and grandfather,” concluded Denice Marcel, one of the hearings’ primary Roswell witnesses, and the descendant of other Roswell truthers.

    But the enduring power of UFOs doesn’t seem like something we can explain away as delusion or demographic proclivity. It seems to spring from someplace deeper—the same place, psychologists like C.G. Jung have argued, that forced early humans to make up myths to explain the weather. These stories explain things we don’t, or can’t, understand. (“I was dealing with a phenomenon that I felt could not be explained psychiatrically,” the Harvard psychiatrist who believed in alien abduction once said.)
    The alternate narrative isn’t very compelling, which explains why conferences and museums on existentialism, if they existed, would draw far smaller crowds than Myrtle Beach’s “UFO Experience” and D.C.’s recent UFO hearings. It also accounts for the flood of Hollywood features on UFOs—500 since 1947, according to IMDB—and the relative lack of movies on the vast, dark emptiness of the unfeeling universe. (Also worth noting: according to Irwin and others, more alien movies = more UFO sightings.)
    Perhaps viewers want to feel what Roy Neary felt in the 1977 hit “Close Encounters of the Third Kind.”

    “I know this sounds crazy, but ever since yesterday on the road, I’ve been seeing this shape,” Neary says after seeing a UFO. “Shaving cream, pillows… Dammit! I know this. I know what this is! This means something. This is important.”
    In other words many folk are simply "disturbed" and put off by a Universe that has no emotional attachment or caring about us simple poor humans...It evolved at the BB [around 10-43 seconds post the initial event]according to best evidence, and continues to evolve. This eliminates any need for any ID at least back to that time, and of course there is also reasonable speculative science that takes us back to what we term as the nothing from which the BB evolved. But that sciency stuff is for science not this pseudoscience crap often spouted by MR and supported by river.

    Another informed article...
    This Former NASA Engineer Has Debunked Pretty Much Every Online UFO Sighting:
    The conclusion? Most of your "insane UFO sightings" are little more than 'space dandruff', or your brain misunderstanding of what space travel actually looks like, says Oberg.

    As Cara Giaimo from Atlas Obscura reports, after working at NASA mission control in the late '90s, Oberg went on to become a space journalist and historian. It wasn't until a few years ago that he started to take UFO sightings seriously.

    His goal isn't to simply crap all over true believers - he calls that "stomping on dormice" - instead he's interested in teasing out exactly what's going on in these images and videos, and trying to figure out why people are reacting so strongly to them.

    His hypothesis? Our human senses are so used to focussing on relatively slow-moving objects, as well as certain light and atmosphere conditions, that when things change, our brains get confused.

    "Our sensory system is functioning absolutely perfectly for Earth conditions," Oberg told Giaimo. "But we're still a local civilisation. Moving beyond our neighbourhood has been visually confusing."

    In these videos, people usually freak out because the spots seem to dance in and out of view, or suddenly appear and disappear. Which is pretty creepy if you're sitting at your computer on Earth, but isn't that weird if you're on a space shuttle travelling 28,000 km/h (17,500 mph) - nothing's going to stay in your frame of vision very long.

    And if the spacecraft is in the right position in relation to the Sun, it can also cast its shadow onto these objects to make them disappear and reappear, which is known as 'twilight shadowing'.


    My own dismissal of the small amount of UFO sightings that remain unexplained is far less simple and complicated. If they were little green men, they would by necessity be far in advance of our own intelligence, having overcome the tyranny of travelling light years...they would not really want for anything, as anything found on Earth can be found in the depths of space and the universe....why the continued "flitterrring in and flittering out again? Why not make their visitations official? Afterall discovering a species like us, many light years from their own home should be a momentous event...why are the generally just landing in out of the way places, kidnapping gullible folk, anally probing them, and returning them?

    I see another well respected member commented elsewhere that this forum condones this and other non scientific concepts and nonsense for quantity over quality. I believe that he has hit the nail fair square on the head.
    I must say before leaving that at least the gullible members like river and MR are open and forthright with their nonsense. It's the more cunning, deceitful and dumb ones that pretend to align with science while dismissing many relevant aspects of it to cast doubt on the system itself, and attempt to prize open the door to their hidden closeted ID beliefs and the dummies that have supported them in the past, when their modus operandi was pretty obvious from the start.

    In summing life elsewhere may well should, afterall we are part of a universe that is near infinite in extent and content, with the stuff of life being everywhere we look!

    ps: and before I forget, I'm baaack!!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  8. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    You are both lazy - adding no useful content here - and clearly a troll. Your style is so similar to sweetpea's I have to wonder if sock puppet makes it three.
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    This is why people get so short with you and other proponents of nonsense MR. The UFO acronym when first mentioned was exactly what it literally, scientifically and graphically object/view/observation that is undetermined and/or unknown.
    Later of course as these sightings increased, it then meant most probably some alien/interdimentional craft by those gullible to the little green men aspect.
    Scientifically of course it still meant unidentified and unknown due to the lack of evidence to specify the nature of this unknown object.
  10. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Welcome back

    I'm here part time

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Moderator note: Magical Realist is warned for spamming our forum with cut-and-pasted UFO anecdotes from other sites.

    On several previous occasions, MR was advised that he is required to provide at least some commentary or preliminary analysis of his own when posting this kind of content, and that unaccompanied cutting and pasting of this kind would be treated as spam. Clearly, he has chosen to ignore previous warnings and has chosen not to modify his behaviour in light of previous temporary bans.

    Since we find ourselves having to police this issue repeatedly, this warning carries double the usual number of warning points.

    Due to accumulated warning points, Magical Realist has been banned from sciforums for a period of 1 week.
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Magical Realist:

    Yes, the obligatory nervous tic when you have no adequate response to what I wrote. Noted once again.

    Clearly you didn't read any of my detailed reply to you. Or you're dishonest in addition to being lazy. I'm leaning towards the latter explanation.

    I have no problem at all with the USAF definition, other than I think it could be clarified to make it clear that it is not necessary that a UFO be forever unidentifiable in order to be called a UFO. But I wrote on this in detail above.

    Let's be clear: the existence of clouds doesn't blow my mind. Remember that you agreed that an ordinary cloud was an alien craft, just above.

    If further clarification is needed (assuming you're not dishonest but just plain old stupid), then let me also say that it doesn't blow my mind that some people report seeing things in the sky that they can't identify. And that's all that UFOs are. Using your terminology, as soon as something is identified as a "craft" it is an "IFO", not a UFO. In other words, you believe all of your UFOs are really IFOs, because you believe that all of them are "craft", at the very least. You just want to call them UFOs and then complain when I or the USAF uses that term as it was intended.

    No, not because of that, obviously.

    Every UFO investigation must remain open until it's positively identified as something because until it is identified there is an unsolved mystery. I mean, if you like, you can wind up the investigation with an indefinite conclusion, saying "Case closed. We have no idea what this thing is." What you can't do, unless you're dishonest, is to pretend that you know the UFO is craft in the absence of sufficient evidence for that conclusion.

    It's possible, but I think unlikely in the extreme.

    What's far more likely is that it will be impossible to draw definition conclusions for many of the cases, simply because the available evidence is of such low quality or quantity. The only honest conclusion in that case is "Case closed. We can't confirm what it was."

    Maybe, maybe not.

    Do you get tired when you have to read more than a sentence or two at a time, Magical Realist. Does it hurt your brain when you're asked to think about stuff? Poor you.

    That's a straw man. Try reading what I wrote, just this once. Try being honest.

    You talk about accounts being dismissed - automatically even. Who said anything about that? Not me, that's for sure.

    An eyewitness account is one piece of evidence that must be evaluated both in the context of all the other specific evidence relating to the reported events and in the context of everything else that is known about events that happen in the world. (And before you start up again, 1000 anecdotes are not necessarily any more persuasive that one, especially when a lot of them involve the same faulty assumptions.)

    The only thing I deny is that you - or anybody else - has presented sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion that aliens are visiting Earth.

    Yours is a faith-based belief that demonstrably fails to stand up to scrutiny. You have failed to make a good case so many times on this forum alone it's not funny any more.

    Straw men and lies, all.

    UFOs exist. People see stuff in the sky that they can't identify.
    The "semantic" argument over the definition of UFO is mostly a waste of time, playing with words. It would be better to concentrate on the real point of contention: your claim that UFOs are alien "craft".
    The question of whether eyewitness accounts are reliable or unreliable can only be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I have never claimed that all eyewitness accounts are unreliable. I have only ever claimed that eyewitness accounts should not be considered reliable in all their particulars by default. There is very good reason for that cautionary approach, borne out by scientific investigations of human perception and memory.

    70 years and still no good evidence. When will you give up the faith?

    If you play the fool, it's fine for me to observe that you're making yourself look foolish.
    If you paint yourself as an idiot, it's fine for me to point out that that's what you're doing.
    The demonstrated fact that you will believe in alien "craft" no matter what and spend your time talking about UFOs almost exclusively on this forum, justifies the "fanboy" label.
    Your dishonest lies justify my calling you a dishonest liar.

    I've known you on this forum for years now, Magical Realist. I know all your tricks. I know your beliefs back to front. Your long record of posts to this forum over years leaves no doubt about either your beliefs about UFOs or the desperate lengths you will go to in order to prop up that psychological crutch you rely on (for whatever reason).
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2020
  14. river

    In the end , there are air craft that can do and do fantastic things that they shouldn't be able to .

    And there are witnesses from all walks of life .

    It takes time for some to understand the truth that there is a being(s) that are far more intelligent than most of us are .
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Or possible just cases illusions, delusions, misidentification, atmospheric phenomena etc etc. We do not have convincing evidence that they are UFO of alien origin or interdimensional craft.
    Sure but none are infallible and many are burdened with confirmation bias and a preconceived agenda.
    The evidence so far is non existent for any life off the Earth, although most scientists do agree that there should be life elsewhere, due to the sheer quantity and extent of the universe around us and the fact that the stuff of life is everywhere we look. But time and distance are great barriers between inter-planetary contact.
  16. river


    BLAH , BLAH , BLAH ......

    Advanced propulsion systems

    And Pad , what books have you read on the UfO's ?
  17. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Extremely poorly thought out unsubstantiated claim.

    Mental health issues knows no bounds and affects people from all walks of life.

    It doesn't take a whole lot of intelligence to recognize baloney when it's being served up.
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Expected just as much.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You take it easy in your fairy tale world river.
    I've read plenty river as I have told you in the past, but unlike you I am not a gullible fool that automatically accepts every bit of nonsense he reads. Your moronic previous claim of an atomic war on Mars between Alien species was a ripper though!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. river

    What books have you read on UFO's pad ?
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Ask river about the atomic war on Mars between alien species!! That was a rip snorter!!!
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    UFO: Alien Cover Up. By some nut called Stephen Geer.
    What books have you read on science river?
  22. river

    Hope you didn't bleed .
  23. river

    Not the cover-up , on witness observation accounts .

Share This Page