Portage County/Ravenna UFO chase 1966

Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by Magical Realist, Dec 8, 2016.

  1. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,625
    All the data on all the cases I've posted is readily available online to anyone with the gumption to research it. The fact that you couldn't even do that and just whine and complain about them being documentaries shows me you aren't serious about studying this and so really have nothing credible to say about them. You never do. You just claim everything is faked and that's supposed to hold water. It doesn't. You haven't debunked a single account I've given yet. And that's your problem not mine. Better hurry up and debunk that helicopter encounter now before I post another one. Lord knows we wouldn't want to tax you too much. lol!
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2016
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    See, delusions as I have mentioned to you before, is one of these possibilities with regards to those sightings that remain unidentified and that you appear to be suffering from.
    You see what you want to see MR...maybe it adds a touch of excitement to your life that's badly needed, I don't know.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    But it is sad.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    All I know is the facts as most level headed people see them.....thousands of sightings of UFO's...some a result of trickery and playful people that like to "suck in" the gullible and impressionable people out there, possibly illusions, possibly atmospheric variations and anomalies, secret military aircraft, normal everyday aircraft that are just not recognised as such, refraction/reflection of light playing tricks with ones eyes, delusions, mirages, etc etc etc etc. Of course the very very small percentage that cannot be explained by any of these possible causes, remain as UFO's, pure and simple.
    And that is how it officially stands as far as most are concerned particularly in government quarters and academia , not withstanding of course the cranks that flood the Internet with supposed u tube videos and general nonsensical claims to attract and fool gullible adherents.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2016
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    31,445
    Great! Then you'll have no trouble supplying the extensive report on the case that I've requested three or four times now.

    Send me the link and I'll take a look at it.

    I chose to examine in detail the police UFO sighting from 1966 that you brought up. I read all the witness statements you linked to, and commented specifically on the one you quoted almost verbatim in this thread.

    I assume this is all you have on this case, despite your claim that more information is "readily available". Either that's a lie, or you, by your own admission, don't have the gumption to research it.

    I have made no claims of fakery regarding the 1966 UFO case that I have been examining, let alone any claim that "everything" about it is faked.

    Actually, that's wrong, but I'm not surprised you've forgotten the case of the faked photo that I debunked. At the time you wouldn't admit the photo was faked until it was pointed out to you by three or four other people besides myself. Eventually, you sort of half-grudgingly admitted it was faked, then ran away as fast as your little legs could carry you to find some new shiny bauble on youtube. Now you don't even remember that happened.

    As for the 1966 UFO case, the evidence is far too scanty at present to come to a conclusion regarding legitimacy or fakery or mistake or whatever with any degree of certainty. To the extent that you claim what you have presented so far is "compelling evidence" of alien spaceships or whatever, I'd say I've well and truly debunked that silly notion.

    It's your main problem that you apparently need me to do your thinking for you instead of thinking for yourself.

    It's inevitable that many other shiny baubles will attract your attention and you'll get bored of this case. You have the attention span of a gnat when it comes to this stuff. One quick glance, then quickly move on to the next thing. You just want to bolster your pre-existing faith.

    This is baby stuff for me. I've barely started.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,625
    Nope.,.that's your job. Do a google search on the case. You know how to do that don't you?

    You'll never know if there isn't more until you go out and search for yourself. Answer your own questions. Prove you are really interested in investigating these cases instead of just finding excuses to dismiss them. Compare them to other cases. Infer common patterns. You don't need me to do this. You're a big boy now. Make us proud Jimmy. Here's a resource you might find useful:

    http://www.ufoevidence.org/

    Good. Then you admit it's a compelling case proving the existence of ufos. Welcome to the club. I'll ship you your tin foil hat in the mail.

    Ran away? I admitted it was fake and moved on. What am I supposed to do? Sit here and belabor a point over and over again with you? Sorry but I've got better things to do.

    Ahh..but I never claimed it was an alien spaceship did I? That must really gripe your butt that you can't pin me down on claiming to know the identity of the ufonauts. lol!

    I don't need your game of 21 questions to tell me which cases are questionable and which cases are solid. The cases I post have been investigated by researchers far better than you or I over the years and vetted for fraud or errors of perception. So don't even flatter yourself that you are figuring things out that nobody has thought of before. You aren't. The cases have withstood scrutiny over many years and remain compelling examples of the ufo phenomena.

    Noted resorting to insults now. Wow...you must be getting upset. Is this wearing on you? Yazata are you seeing this?

    Still waiting. Tick...tick... tick...
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2016
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Again, no one has ever denied the existence of UFO's, simply your version of it being something that you seem to know as either paranormal, supernatural or Alien invasion. The U in UFO means "Unidentified"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Yes, yes you keep saying that and expect others to accept you are taking a middle of the road position, while all the time dismissing all other possibilities such as I have mentioned many times, leaving open your Alien position by default. It doesn't work that way MR, and its quite peurile of you to believe anyone will accept your biased reasonings on the subject.
    Some possibly "compelling examples" of UFO phenomena, none compelling evidence of ETI or life off this Earth.
    Essentially despite your attempts to avoid it, the U in UFO means Unidentified, and as such, and officially, the claims remain that they are just UFO's, nothing more, nothing less.
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    Magical Realist:

    Please link me to the source of the photograph you posted of the Portage County / Ravenna UFO sighted by the police officers in 1966.

    The link to the image above points to some site that only contains the image itself, as far as I can tell.

    Tell me where you obtained that image.

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

    Messages:
    31,445
    Magical Realist:

    I've done that. While I can find lots of second-hand accounts of the case, the only "original" documents that I can find are the ones that were linked in a previous post, on the NICAP web site.

    My tentative conclusion at this point is that no other "original" documentation is readily available on the web, contrary to your claims that additional information is readily available.

    Please let me know if you in fact have any additional information. If you know nothing else about this case other than what you have already posted, let me know, too.

    And don't forget my question about the photo, above. I can't find that photo associated with the case anywhere, so where did you find it?

    See above, for starters.

    Now, you show me that you have done your homework on this case. Provide the information that I haven't been able to find, if you can.

    There's a common pattern all right. Mainly it's a pattern of honest mistake, or else fraud or pure fabrication, and on occasion hallucination or false memory.


    I looked there. It has nothing extra to add to what I've already seen regarding the Portage County case.

    It does no such thing, for reasons I have already pointed out. Come on. Try. You're smarter than this. Aren't you?

    You eventually grudgingly admitted it was fake and then ran away to something new. Like I said.

    That wouldn't be necessary if you showed the capacity to learn from experience - particularly from your past mistakes.

    Oh, I see. The only thing you're claiming is that there's compelling evidence that some people sometimes claim to see lights in the sky that they can't identify.

    I have no argument that there's compelling evidence for that.

    Maybe we're done here, then. There's no need for you to post any more anecdotes. I accept that you have shown that there is compelling evidence that people tell anecdotes about seeing unidentified flying objects.

    On the other hand, I never disagreed with you about that in the first place. But I thought your opinion was that there was more to these things than just people reporting seeing things they couldn't identify. My mistake.

    Great! Then you'll have no trouble agreeing that the available information on the Portage County case, presented so far in this thread, is questionable. In fact, that is proven by the fact that I have asked unanswered (and perhaps unanswerable) questions about it.

    Great!

    Which researchers vetted the Portage County case for fraud or errors of perception, and what did they conclude? Tell me how they went about vetting the case, too. And please link me to their reports. I assume you've already done your homework on this.

    You don't need to worry about that. I'm sure this ground has been well trodden since 1966. In fact, one would think that UFO "believers" such as yourself would have put together a far more compelling dossier of compelling evidence on this case by now. Strange that experts such as yourself don't seem to have done so. You've had 50 years, after all.

    What scrutiny has been applied to the Portage County case? Where can I read the detailed reports of how the incident was scrutinised? I assume you've done your homework on this and aren't just making shit up, as you like to say.

    How so?

    I'm not especially enjoying the tone in which you have chosen to conduct this conversation, but I'll cope.

    At this point in the conversation I am starting to suspect that you, personally, might be telling me some deliberate lies, but we'll see in your next post or two.
     
    Kristoffer likes this.
  11. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,625
    http://ufo-blogg.blogspot.com/2012/04/portage-county-ohio-police-ufo-chase.html
     
  12. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,625
    You have all the documentation you need to decide this case. I already posted original documents, first hand eyewitness accounts, drawings, and a photo. If you can't find anything more, so what? The case stands as compelling evidence of ufos.

    I'm not looking for that information and don't need it. If you need more, pursue it yourself. The internet is large. I'm sure there's something more you haven't found yet.

    You're contradicting yourself. You already said you didn't think it was faudulent. Now you're saying it is? I think you're losing it dude. Go drink some wine and relax for awhile.

    I have no idea what more you want. I suspect you're just procrastinating and making up excuses for not admitting the case is a solid one and proves the existence of ufos. I'm not going to play along with that. You have enough information to make a decision. If you can't still, then you're just hiding from the truth.

    Yes it does and you know it.


    I didn't run anywhere. I continued posting in the thread just as I had all along.

    All my experience of viewing the evidence for ufos has taught me that they are real and unknown phenomena that are still happening in our time. I don't need you to tell me that one fake photo means ufos aren't real. That's insane.

    No..they witness ufos, as defined by the definition I've already repeated here about three times.

    Nope...there's compelling evidence for the existence of ufos based on eyewitness testimony, photos, video, and radar data.

    You want to go with that strawman fine. I never claimed it.

    No..the case is not questionable and is solidly evidenced and documented. We've been over this. And you asking bullshit questions you know can't be answered without actually hunting down the eywitnesses themselves doesn't make the case questionable.

    The U.S. Airforce and that ufo investigation group I forget the name of. NICAP! That's it. I thought you said you studied this already.

    LOL! You haven't debunked a thing about this case yet. And suddenly I'M at fault here? Seems the only one who has failed miserably is you. Instead of whining, you can move on now and study the next two cases I've posted. I'm pretty sure you'll find them even harder to debunk that this one.

    You haven't really researched this at all have you? Go look for the report under Project Blue Book.

    You don't have to study these cases if they are getting to you. Some people can't handle the truth of ufos and the paranormal. I get that. Maybe you're not mentally constituted to live with such uncertainty. Which is probably why you cling to science like a religion.

    Where have I lied? Quote it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2016
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    This photo seems to come only from that web site, as far as I can tell. It is problematic in a number of ways.

    For example, in the letter linked to earlier from William Weitzel, NICAP investigator, to Professor William Powers, Weitzel writes, concerning the photograph taken by police chief Gerald Buchert in front of his house (which was not where the "chase" was happening):

    Chief Buchert photographed an object which was perhaps the same one Spaur and Neff chased, but most likely not. While he heard over his radio that they were in pursuit, it was moving up and down (relative to, actually above and below) near some power lines or phone wires in front of his home. The film seems inconclusive; two dark arcs are not separated by any frame boundaries.* There is no warping, or was none when I examined it, at these points. They could not, however, as the Air Force implied, be an image of Venus. (* or to be interpreted as separate objects, either; there are no frame boundaries at all in this area.)

    A densitometer examination of the negative should reveal whether the dark portion of the arcs which Buchert and the press assumed represented the UFO are darker or lighter than the background. If they are darker than the minimum exposure in that area (slight fogging), they could not be of any object at all, except one which emits negative light (a gratuitous, though ad hoc and scientifically unsound, qualification). The Air Force has issued several statements deprecating this peculiar image: flaw in negative, poor handling in development, old foggy film, and Venus-image. I do not know if a densitometer check was made. NICAP's Pittsburgh Subcommittee has this equipment, but I was able to examine the negative only in the presence of Chief Buchert. At any rate, I consider the film to be irrelevant because of the lack of correlation between Buchert's sighting, and that of Spaur and Neff, and between the peculiar image(s) on the film, and the deputies' description of the object. (Irrelevant to the P-13 sighting, that is.) The press gave this item much attention because there was a Photograph.
    The emphasis here is mine.

    In other words, the conclusion at the time was that Buchert's photograph was most likely unrelated to the "chase", and it was in any case of poor quality and perhaps not a photograph of anything real, but rather a photographic artifact.
    ---

    Now, the claim on the site you have linked is that the photograph displayed here is Buchert's photo. But I am extremely suspicious about that.

    The photo was "digitally enchanced by Paul Hynek". What does that mean, exactly? How did Hynek get the negative, and from whom? And what "enhancements" were done?

    The Hynek photo, if indeed that it what it is, doesn't match either the above-quoted description of the Buchert photo, or any of the eyewitnesses' descriptions of the UFO.

    Unless the provenance of the Hynek "enhanced" photo can be established, I think it is more probable that it is a fake that somebody has linked to this case at some point. When that linkage occurred and who the faker was is unknown. It could have been Hynek, or it could have been the makers of the web page that (by implication falsely) attributes the photo to Hynek.

    There is no evidence that Buchert's original negative was ever examined, other than as described by Weitzel (see above).

    So, at the very least we can agree that the photograph is not at all compelling as corroborating evidence of the Portage UFO chase.

    Do you agree with this analysis, Magical Realist?
     
    Kristoffer and paddoboy like this.
  14. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,625
    Pure speculation. I accept the photo as real. Cameras don't make up elliptical objects flying in the sky.

    Here's some background on the photo and the Air Force's disinformation campaign against it:

    "Buchert wasted no time in getting his film developed. He was known for working by a simple code -- "Cover your ass" -- and that's what the photo would do. Or so he thought.

    When he was finally satisfied that he'd captured an image of the craft, he called the Cleveland office of the FBI. An agent referred him to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, near Dayton. Buchert relayed what he'd seen and was told that someone would be in touch.

    Major Hector Quintanilla called the next morning. In addition to the incident, they discussed the photograph. The major told Buchert he could release a grainy copy of the photo to the press, but that he should send the negatives directly to him. The chief readily agreed.

    Only later did this seemingly routine request begin to look like a setup. As it turned out, photographic evidence and vivid eyewitness accounts would mean little to the Air Force. From his office at Wright-Patterson, Quintanilla released a statement: Buchert's film was "severely fogged," he wrote, and the fuzzy image on it was nothing more exciting than a processing defect."-----------http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/strangers-in-the-night/Content?oid=1485939
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2016
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    But people who have digitally enchanced a photograph can make anything appear.
    And of course your speculation remark can be applied to every post that you post on this forum, on the subject of ghosts, goblins, supernatural and probing Aliens.
     
  16. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,625
    Except for the fact that all my cases are backed up with solid and credible eyewitness testimony. There's no dismissing that.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    Magical Realist:

    No. I don't, and I have carefully explained to you what's missing.

    It is now clear that you don't have enough to make a rational decision on this any more than I do. I now actually know more about this case than you ever did.

    But you keep making statements of faith, regardless.

    Then the information that is available is insufficient to decide whether this was a mistaken sighting of the planet Venus, or a case of fakery, or a real alien encounter.

    By which you mean a craft that moves faster than any known human craft, blah blah blah. No, there's zero evidence of that kind of thing here.

    You don't need it because your belief that this was aliens or whatever is a faith-based belief, and that's good enough for you. You've never been interested in finding out the truth.

    I've spent some time on it - more time than you've spent on it, that's for sure. My considered judgment, based on what I've seen, is that the evidence is inconclusive. And since you can provide nothing I haven't seen, I conclude that you have no basis other than faith to think this had anything to do with alien spacecraft or the like.

    No. I have an open mind as to the possibility of fraud, because I need more evidence to decide that matter. Regarding the photograph, for example, see my post above.

    I said I have no evidence of fraud (yet).

    It is you who jumps to conclusions without evidence, not me.

    I don't know why you have no idea. I have been very explicit in my previous posts about what more I want.

    Are you stupid, or forgetful, or is this just a pretense of ignorance on your part?

    By which you mean alien spacecraft that outperform all human craft, etc. No, this case does not prove anything like that.

    You don't have enough information to make a decision. I know this because I know more about the case than you do, and I don't have enough information.

    So you can't know "the truth" of this. You can only have a faith-based belief, which is what you've had all along, of course. You've never cared about evidence.

    I know it's hard for you, but try to focus on this one case. We can get to the thousands of others you believe unquestioningly later.

    Of course, if you're willing to drop your silly claim that this particular case provided compelling proof of aliens, then maybe we can move on to something else.

    Great! I'm so glad to hear yet again from you that there's solid documentation of all aspects of this case.

    When are you going to produce that documentation and other evidence?

    You're not going to, are you? Because the fact is: you haven't seen anything I haven't seen about this case. Your refusal to ask questions about this case relates to your faith-based belief that those policemen saw an alien spaceship. You don't want to risk that belief by opening your mind to other possibilities.

    If the case was as solidly documented as you say it is, there'd be no need to hunt down the eyewitnesses. Answers to all sensible questions would be readily available in the solid documentation.

    But that's not what we're seeing here, is it?

    This isn't solidly documented at all. There's evidence of some investigation by certain people, but even that evidence is incomplete, and the people who set out to investigate this at the time admit that parts of the evidence are questionable.

    But you? No. 50 years later you're claiming that it's an open-and-shut case. Based on what? Nothing. You have no more information about the case than I have.

    I did. The Airforce investigation was Project Blue Book, which put the sighting down to mistaken perception. That conclusion was heavily criticised and some information was submitted to the Condon committee. Condon found that, overall, there was no evidence of alien visitation, based on the entirety of the cases reviewed (including this one).

    Then there's NICAP, which was apparently a group of UFO-enthusiast civilians. That's the source of the documents you linked to earlier. As far as I'm aware, they didn't investigate the case independently.

    To what extend have you studied all this? I seem to know far more than you do about it.

    Correct. To do that, I need far more information, as I have been saying consistently.

    I have shown that this case, like many UFO cases, is hampered by a long time lag, a lack of access to relevant evidence, and a less-than-optimal initial investigation, combined with a paucity of extant records dating back to the incident itself.

    This is not a failure. I have highlighted exactly why your belief that it's aliens for sure is untenable when it comes to this case. You have a faith-based belief, not one based on evidence or analysis.

    Your shoddy standards have been exposed for all to see - again. So who failed miserably? Somebody sure did, and I don't think it was me.

    I think not. I think I'll see what else comes out in the wash about this one, first.

    I see no reason to buy into more of your flighty distractions - the search for a shinier bauble.

    Every single one of your cases that I've looked at in any detail has always displayed major flaws in evidence almost immediately. This one is just more of the same, and I'm confident any others I examine will most likely follow the same pattern.

    I'd love to read what they had to say. Got a link?

    Having said that, I would have thought you'd be very critical of Project Blue Book on this. Are you telling me you're willing to accept that investigation as authoritative on this case?

    The cases don't bother me in the slightest. They are standard UFO-nut fare.

    Some people don't know how to go about finding truth, or they don't want truth in the first place. I get that.

    LOL. Nice irony there, Magical Realist.

    Recall that it is you who has zero uncertainty here, not me. I'm coping just fine with the uncertainty. You, on the other hand, have a desperate, aching need to just believe in something.

    Science is all about uncertainty. UFOology, on the other hand, is mostly underpinned by an abiding faith among its true believers. You are a good example of that.

    I'll wait for your comments regarding the photograph.
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    Based on what?

    Pure speculation that it might be real?

    LOL.

    They do, as described for example in the quote from Weitzel, above.

    On what basis have you concluded that there was a "disinformation campaign"?
     
  19. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    789
    Magical Realist likes this.
  20. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    789
    It's pretty well known that quintenilla was only looking to disprove every sighting. He was not concerned with the truth.
     
    Magical Realist likes this.
  21. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,625
    There's nothing missing. Documented eyewitness accounts? Check. NICAP reports on the case? Check. Drawings by the eyewitnesses? Check. Photograph? Check. Nothing else is required.

    Everything I accept here is based on the evidence I have presented to you.

    No it isn't. It's sufficient to establish it wasn't the planet Venus (Venus doesn't hum and float over trees to where you're standing and then speed down a highway at 100 mph). It's sufficient to establish it wasn't a helicopter, (humming noise again and self-illuminated elliptical shape). It's all there for everyone to see.

    You're insane. You just read the eyewitness accounts by the three police officers. No manmade craft hums while floating overhead or hovers slowly 300 ft in the air to take off suddenly at 100 mph. No craft is elliptical shaped like two saucers cupped together.

    Don't preach to me about truth. All you do here is find excuses to dismiss evidence to support your faith that ufos don't exist. Your denialism and confirmation bias on this topic is obvious for all to see here.

    I have a whole article about what happened on this case, the Air Force's investigation, the harrassment the police officers suffered as a result, etc. Do you want to read it or continue to brag about your 10 minute review of the case.

    Nobody needs any more evidence than has been provided. Unless like you they are just trying to debunk it with something nobody's considered yet. But that ain't happening as I've already told you. Nothing else exists that can debunk it.

    Good. Then don't assume it's fraudulent.


    LOL! You don't even know what it is you want. I guess you'll know it when you see it eh?

    I never said alien spacecraft. Just a ufo, And it's all in the eyewitness descriptions..

    You should call NICAP then and tell them this after their years of investigating this case. lol!

    All I post is evidence. Your denial of it being evidence notwithstanding.

    You haven't debunked a thing about yet. That makes it pretty damn compelling in my book.

    See the links I've already posted for you.

    I've posted all the documentation and evidence. Go back and review it again if you've fogotten it.

    Alien ship? Who said that? Are you falling back into your lie that I think it is aliens?

    Except you aren't asking sensible questions. You are asking bullshit questions that have nothing to do with anything.

    I guess NICAP just made up all that documentation I posted for you earlier?

    We both have all the information we need to know to decide the nature of this object and what it wasn't. We have the documented accounts and drawings of the eyewitnesses. And we have the photo, proving it wasn't Venus.

    Right..they totally handwaved away this case as they did with most all ufo cases. That was their job. Why don't you go read up about it? Wikipedia Project Blue Book would be a good place to start.

    Ofcourse they did. Every case they evaluate objectively and rule out all possible causes before concluding ufo. Go to their website and find out about them. http://www.nicap.org/

    Tell me something I don't know about it. Go ahead. I'm all ears..

    You need an excuse to deny the evidence that is right in front of you. And since you can't find one, you blame me for accepting the evidence provided. You know you've failed and are now using me as a scapegoat for your frustration. How does it feel to be a failure Jimmy?
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2016
  22. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,625
    Bullshit. All the documents are provided online for all to see. You're just sulking that you can't debunk any of them. I think you're getting too old for this. Maybe you should retire and go live in the woods.

    LOL! What belief in aliens? Are you losing it again old man?

    Ooo.I'm so embarrassed. Look what James R has done. Exposed me to all the world by failing to debunk the world famous and well documented Portage County UFO case. lol!

    I knew you'd run off with your tail between your legs. I just didn't know it would happen this soon.

    You like that bauble metaphor alot, don't you? Is that what they called toys back when you were a kid?

    And I'm confident you will continue your losing streak of failing to debunk any case I present to you in the future. Perhaps it IS best you give up. You're only making yourself look more and more foolish at this point.

    Not at all. I just thought a US Airforce investigation into this case would prove to you that this wasn't all just made up my some evil documentary film makers. That IS your go to claim isn't it?

    Which you have totally failed to debunk and even now make excuses for not doing so.

    You'll get to truth if you just go by the evidence. That's what I do in science and in ufology. Go by the evidence. And it always works.

    I don't "believe" anything. I know ufos are real, but I have no idea what they are. I know they aren't manmade or naturally cause. They are real mysteries. That's not a certain scenario by any stretch.


    Then why are you so certain ufos don't exist? If you're not getting that certainty from science, where ARE you getting it from?
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2016
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Rubbish. All your cases are necessarilly and by definition simple UFO's, with the emphasis on U for unidentified, that fact that you constantly like to either avoid or obfuscate on with your own personal definition.


    It's pretty well known that there are many many probable explanations for all UFO sightings, with no solid evidence for any particular one: That's why it remains as UFO, and unidentified.
    It's the gullible and impressionable few that like to immediately extrapolate that to Alien invasions or similar irrational concept.
    These thousands and thousands of sightings are mostly easily explained in many ways, trickery and jokes, complete frauds, illusions, delusions, unusual cloud formation/s, unusual weather patterns and atmospheric disturbances, secret military aircraft, misidentified known aircraft.
    For all these thousands and thousands of supposed Alien visitations, and yet not once do they make their presence official, or appear in some recognisable public place in front of thousands: Just the usual flittering in, and flittering out again, giving those that need to fabricate some excitement in their lives an excuse to put their imagination to work.
     

Share This Page