UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Q-reeus:

I never claimed to be infallible.

I haven't seen much evidence that you have seriously considered whether you could be wrong about your personal paranormal theory, however.

Of course you will. You'll take anything you can mould to fit your pet hypothesis and ignore or reject anything else. You're no different from Magical Realist or any of the other UFO pluggers here. (By the way, have you ever had it out with him as to who flies the spaceships? That could be entertaining for the rest of us to watch. On the other hand, I appreciate it's unlikely to happen why you have bigger perceived enemies to attack.)

224 pages and you've missed all the good reasons, consistently. I can only really put it down to wilful blindness at this stage.

Why should it matter what I want or don't want? You got evidence? Bring it. There are plenty of things that are true of the world, in spite of my fervent wish that they weren't true. Wishing doesn't make it so. Perhaps it's time for you to start to realise that?

My, what an accomplished psychologist you are!

What does any of that have to do with UFOs?

If you're about to tell me that your belief in paranormal UFOs connects to your religious beliefs in some important way, then maybe we can start a separate thread to discuss how that is supposed to work, exactly.

In this thread, as you will recall, we have been looking at evidence for or against space aliens. Now you want to shift the goalposts so that your aliens can exist as long as the supernatural has not been disproven to your satisfaction. I suppose that change of tack is because you've discovered that the physical evidence for aliens is so weak.

If you can tell me why my personal religious history should have any bearing on whether UFOs are real, then I will consider answering your questions. (The answers, by the way, are already all on record in various threads in the Religion subforum, if you care to look.)

As you are well aware, by now, the evidence for alien visitation is voluminous but of extraordinarily low quality (on average). In almost all "unsolved" cases that I am aware of, there are simply too many obvious holes in the case being made for the identification of UFOs as extraterrestrial craft of any kind (including paranormal ghost-driven ones, or whatever the hell you think they are). Overwhelmingly, the purported "evidence" for aliens leans heavily on the importance and reliability of anecdotes, most of which are now untestable (and in many cases which were never testable). The most convincing cases almost inevitably turn out to be deliberate frauds, if they are solved.

You protest that naval pilots say they saw alien spaceships and that's good enough for you. Your characterisation that I "refuse to acknowledge" such "eyewitness" statements is a knowing falsehood that you want to propagate. Unfortunately for you, I'm on the record both acknowledging that commenting on such things in a clear-headed way.

I am interested in exploring your rationalisations about my supposed "prejudiced ideological commitment reasons", though, if for no other reason that to further explore how you justify your views to yourself. I guess you have no reason for claiming that I'm prejudiced, other than that I don't share your faith; probably you'd say the same thing to anybody who is a "non-believer" in your bullshit.

How about my supposed ideology, then? What do you identify as that ideology, and why is it so problematic for you and your claims? Which ideology do you advocate instead?

As for the "nasty, impudent" comment, I have come to expect that kind of personal nonsense from you. Seeing as you feel free to get get all personal, forgive me for returning fire by saying that you're a paranoid, delusional little man with a large chip on his shoulder. I suggest that if you want respect, you ought to start by showing some respect to others. If you want civility, trying being civil yourself. If you don't want nastiness, stop being such a nasty little prick all the time. You might find that people warm to you more readily.

 

Your post to paddoboy, which I quoted, has you saying "... you lot simply refuse to acknowledge ...." etc. I took it that the entire post was directed at you lot, where you lot would presumably include all the people who reject your opinions about paranormal aliens.

If you had meant only to insult paddoboy, you probably should have said so and left out the you lot. Maybe you'll be more careful next time.

I take it, then, that all that stuff about prejudice and ideology that you wrote was just a display you put on for effect. It was there only to try to rally any supporters you might have? Or was it doing double work as an extra ad hominem thrown in for good measure?

I'm as interested to learn about your opinions about paddoboy's supposed prejudice and ideology as I am to learn about your opinions of mine. But it doesn't sound like it's actually a developed thought you've had. Rather, just a throw-away insult, from your end. Oh well, never mind.

 

In the English language, there is no way to tell whether a person is using "you" in the singular or the plural, apart from using the context.

When, in addition, somebody uses "you lot", I don't see how a "lot" can possibly refer to a singular person, as opposed to a group of people. So, right back at you, Q-reeus. Remind me: who is dealing in pathetic obfuscation here, again?

It seems to me that, at best, you and I only have access to small fragments of these "considered analyses" whose existence you allege. You talk about the agencies' "direct access", but you have no such direct access. You have access only to second- or third-hand accounts and rumour, for the most part.

As for "cutting edge military" and all that, the military doesn't have a great track record of dealing sensibly with UFOs and the like. Military personnel are not used to dealing with UFO reports. They are relatively rare and, as far as I am aware, all just as contestable as typical civilian reports of such things. The military, by the way, is made up of human beings, all of whom are just a susceptible to the prejudices and falibilities of civilians. You may put military personnel on a pedestal, but just like everybody else they are trained to a particular jobs. Military people are no more likely to be UFO experts than any civilian. In fact, there are civilians who have made careers (or at least reputations) out of careful study of UFOs, which would potentially make them better equipped than military personnel to get to the bottom of UFO sightings.

Leaving all that aside, I think you'll be hard pressed to find any official military channel to support your pet notion of paranormal aliens.

Not by fiat. I generally try to back up my conclusions with evidence, where appropriate. (cf. yourself, with zero support for paranormal aliens).

You're the one insisting on transcendence here, not me. My feet are firmly on the ground. Yours are in the sky with the ghosts.

 

I don't know why you think this advertisement-laden story is important, but I took at look at it.

Which military official? Why isn't he or she named? How do we know this really happened?

Nothing interesting to see there. It does tend to support what I just wrote above, though. They've only just got around to formalising processes now? This has been going on since the 1950s, remember. Whiff of incompetence, or at least disorganisation.

Nobody confirmed any mysterious technology. That's a beat up.

Translated, this is an anecdotal report from the Petty Officer, who was talking about his own interpretation of things he may or may not have seen on the radar. There's no confirmation that any such things actually appeared on his radar.

Described by whom? Why aren't we told? Who concluded they were "vehicles"? On what basis? Where's the physical evidence or records of these "vehicles"?

In other words, neither you nor I are being allowed to evaluate the "raw data" for ourselves, if it even exists.

Does the Senator have special access to UFO evidence, or is he basing his opinion on the same evidence (or lack thereof) that the rest of us joe public has access to?

----

And that's all for that article.

Why the strident demand that I engage with that piece of fluff, Q-reeus?