UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Sure

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you use the quote feature, then - when you quote (Q) - it gets filtered for the rest of us who have him on ignore - so we don't have to read his rants.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Haven't read his rants , give a post#example of .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The one you didn't quote. Post 4097.

(Q) may or may not have something useful to say. But anyone who's lived with teenagers knows they often feel that they are not heard unless they are at once yelling, accusing and cussing. It's a defense: the best defense is a good offense. That way he sidesteps the risk of having his views challenged.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it gets old pretty quick, and, frankly, I come here for adult interaction.

 

Perhaps its okay to just listen sometimes .

pad reacts the same way .

 

If a plausible debunk for a 40 foot long tic tac, a fleet of unidentified radar targets, and FLIR video of a rotating ufo had been made the news media would've been on it. The debunking of a ufo is as newsworthy as the sighting of a ufo. But no such debunking has been made beyond the typical BS excuses of ideological skeptics. Which nobody pays attention to anyway because it's such obvious BS.

 

So does DaveC, as do many others, but DaveC doesn't see himself that way because he's one of those hall monitors in grade school, the guy who walks around the halls bullying others to feel superior. Even though he's not a moderator here, he continuously accuses others of breaking the rules and threatens them with being banned, for example. He even bullied you to use the quote function and others for spelling. I think it's called Pedant Syndrome. This is the so called "adult interaction" he refers.

 

MR , you and I know the BS , and many viewers paused .

 

Just to have a calm discussion about what ever would be a good thing , I think . No insults or the like , just bouncing ideas off each other .

Put up your hands if you would enjoy this , my hand is up .

 

You do that constantly, accusing us of believing that the occupants of ufos are space aliens or that evidence for ufos constitutes evidence for space aliens. You have also been corrected on that strawman many times, explicitly told that such is not what we believe nor what the posted evidence proves. It is a demonstration of your intellectual dishonesty that you persist in doing this and then have the gumption to even deny you're doing it.

 

But that's not anything like you do river. You state gobblydook and nonsene as fact, and you always have. You ignore all the science and cast your own insults. You are a hypocrite as well as being gullible. That's the truth.

and delusional to boot!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I wrote in a reply to Q-reeus

James takes exception to it and says

This thread is more than 200 pages long and while there are many examples of people doing it, I don't really feel motivated to read through the thread looking for examples, but here's one...

That seems to me to create a false dichotomy. The alternatives appear to be limited to:

1. What was seen was space aliens, or else...

2. The witnesses couldn't have seen what they thought they saw (an unknown object that behaved as they described).

It reminds me of the 18th century academics who simply refused to accept even the possibility that rocks might fall from the sky, dismissing any such reports, no matter how well attested by witnesses, as impossibilities that had no place in the Age of Reason.

I obviously have no way of knowing whether or not the attitude of the UFO "skeptics" will eventually look just as foolish as the attitude of the meteorite "skeptics" does today. But refusal to admit even the possibility that something new, interesting and important might be revealing itself in some of these cases would seemingly blind us from ever finding out whether there was.

 

The way I see it Yazata, of the small percentage that are unexplained and remain unidentified as per the "U" in UFO, all possibilities are open. What doesn't make sense is the usual by MR that "what else could it be" or the automatice "write off" of any and all possible mundane causes.

 

James R's MO is in part to narrow the focus to one aspect e.g. Fravor's visual observations, suggest they were faulty (human perception and memory are imperfect), while studiously avoiding an overall perspective that rationally and reasonably integrates all the other evidence pertaining to the incident(s). Something we have pointed out many times but is just ignored outright or trivialized at best.

Gatekeeper tactics to a T. On the odd occasion he does attempt to deal with corroborating evidence, the huge unlikelihood of a perfect chain of faulty inputs both multiple human and multiple state-of-the-art military tech is waved off with cavalier disregard. The sheer unending circularity makes me question the wasted time and effort in responding at all. But leaving the field to only James and close ilk is bad too.

 

To your last statement , ( highlighted ) .

Agreed !!!!

 

↑

Sounds like the government UFO strategy . No straight answer , people ignored , and distracted .

 

So if they did , it does not mean that they invented the actual experience .

 

So are you still claiming all the kids watched a TV show about aliens the previous night? If so, what evidence do you have of this?