Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Did MR start this thread and give it its subject-line? Or was it was split from another thread by our moderators?
UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Did MR start this thread and give it its subject-line? Or was it was split from another thread by our moderators?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Yep..James R created this thread and titled it in accord with his hope that we'd claim ufo's are evidence of space aliens. Unfortunately for him noone here has claimed that. Hence his repeated mistaken accusations that this is what we are trying to prove.
Last edited:
Magical Realist:
Your claim, remember, was that the reality of UFO aliens (or whatever) has been, in your words, compellingly and repeatedly established. What does "established" mean, if not that the reality of your little green men is widely accepted to be true?
The truth is that your belief in the little green men is a fringe one, seriously held only by fringe group of enthusiasts, albeit also vaguely held by the sort of people who say they believe in just about everything (God, the Devil, ESP, astrology, etc. etc.) when polled.
I'm not primarily interested in you. I'm more interested in exposing you as a cautionary tale for others.
It looks like you lost track of your own argument there.
Your claim, remember, was that the reality of UFO aliens (or whatever) has been, in your words, compellingly and repeatedly established. What does "established" mean, if not that the reality of your little green men is widely accepted to be true?
The truth is that your belief in the little green men is a fringe one, seriously held only by fringe group of enthusiasts, albeit also vaguely held by the sort of people who say they believe in just about everything (God, the Devil, ESP, astrology, etc. etc.) when polled.
Then where are the pictures of these pilots, for instance? Why haven't any of them been paraded before the world's news media? You say this is "well-evidenced", but a brief search turns up no good evidence at all.
They sure are damned elusive, apparently only choosing to pop up in poor quality anecdotes and dubious footage, often from unreliable witnesses. Why is that, do you think?
No, it doesn't frustrate me. You're obviously a lost cause, unable to be reasoned with. I tried, but there's no point flogging a dead horse. I have come to accept that your unwarranted faith is a kind of religion for you, with deep personal significance, and that nothing I say is likely to change that.
I'm not primarily interested in you. I'm more interested in exposing you as a cautionary tale for others.
Last edited:
Magical Realist:
Also, I don't have a version of events. I don't know what happened. I wasn't there, as you're so fond of pointing out, and neither were you. What is clear is that your version of events, involving little green men in extraordinary spaceships, doesn't stack up, based on the evidence.
Do you think I'm doing a good job of investigating this incident, sitting in my chair browsing the internet? Most of my posts here are off the top of my head. I've consulted a few internet references from time to time, but most of my effort here has been directed at exposing the unreasonable silliness of your beliefs about the incident. I've put almost precisely zero effort into "trying to debunk" this UFO incident, so far.
I suppose you imagine that you're an investigator who has looked into this incident thoroughly, or something. If that's what you think, you don't have the foggiest clue about what investigating something involves. Watching some credulous youtube videos is not investigation.
Joe Nickell did some real investigating, if you need something to compare to. You know, he went out of his house, he talked to some witnesses, he searched for relevant documentation and read it and evaluated it, and so on and so forth. He interviewed some experts. He applied his own experience and skill to evaluating the matter objectively.
Don't imagine for a moment that you've ever actually investigated any of the woo you believe in. I'm quite confident you have never left your armchair.
I don't know where you get the 40 foot measurement from, either. If it's from Fravor's visual description, it's unlikely to be meaningful. It's not like he got out a ruler and measured it.
I note in passing that whales can be 40 feet long.
What evidence have you gathered? None? I thought so.
Oh, but wait! What did you tell me?
"Nobody said perception and memory are perfect." - Magical Realist (28 Sep 2019)
What if this Navy pilot's perception and memory are not perfect? What then?
What's that, then?
You talk as if you know what he saw. Do you? And how do you know?
Right. I'll note that next you try to argue that an eyewitness can't possibly be mistaken about anything. Let's mark your post for future reference.
It's not a matter of seeing something that wasn't there. It's a matter of misinterpreting what was there. That's what this entire case is about.
No. A "fact" is an established truth. All of this is contested.
First, it wasn't me who introduced Joe Nickell into the discussion. Second, I did not appeal to his authority; I merely quoted his summary of his investigation into the incident. He is somebody who actually talked to relevant witnesses, read relevant documents, and so on - something you have never bothered to do, for instance. His actual investigation trumps your unfounded speculations.
Also, I don't have a version of events. I don't know what happened. I wasn't there, as you're so fond of pointing out, and neither were you. What is clear is that your version of events, involving little green men in extraordinary spaceships, doesn't stack up, based on the evidence.
You know nothing of the biases of the pilots and radar operators. That's just more speculation on your part. The funny thing is, your speculation always leans heavily in whatever direction is necessary to prop up your belief system.
Interesting.
Do you think I'm doing a good job of investigating this incident, sitting in my chair browsing the internet? Most of my posts here are off the top of my head. I've consulted a few internet references from time to time, but most of my effort here has been directed at exposing the unreasonable silliness of your beliefs about the incident. I've put almost precisely zero effort into "trying to debunk" this UFO incident, so far.
I suppose you imagine that you're an investigator who has looked into this incident thoroughly, or something. If that's what you think, you don't have the foggiest clue about what investigating something involves. Watching some credulous youtube videos is not investigation.
Joe Nickell did some real investigating, if you need something to compare to. You know, he went out of his house, he talked to some witnesses, he searched for relevant documentation and read it and evaluated it, and so on and so forth. He interviewed some experts. He applied his own experience and skill to evaluating the matter objectively.
Don't imagine for a moment that you've ever actually investigated any of the woo you believe in. I'm quite confident you have never left your armchair.
You lost track of your own argument. See my previous post.
Nobody knows what they saw.
No. For starters, Fravor only said it was like a tic tac.
I don't know where you get the 40 foot measurement from, either. If it's from Fravor's visual description, it's unlikely to be meaningful. It's not like he got out a ruler and measured it.
I note in passing that whales can be 40 feet long.
Yes, and all of that is nowhere near what would be needed to prove the little green men hypothesis in this case.
Right! Like I said, I have done practically nothing in terms of trying to debunk this.
What evidence have you gathered? None? I thought so.
You use the words "specious" and "unwarranted" there. I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. Maybe you should consult a dictionary. If, after doing that, you want to show how any of my speculations is "specious", you're welcome to try.
It's all so simple. People just report what they see, and that means what they report is what they saw. Why didn't I realise that before? Thank you so much, Magical Realist. Now I know that eyewitnesses are perfect recorders of sensory data.
Oh, but wait! What did you tell me?
"Nobody said perception and memory are perfect." - Magical Realist (28 Sep 2019)
What if this Navy pilot's perception and memory are not perfect? What then?
No?
Commander Fravor’s description of what he witnessed on November 14, 2004:
[excerpted from an ABC News interview]
“I can tell you, I think it was not from this world. I’ve seen pretty much about everything that I can see in that realm, and this was nothing close. I have never seen anything in my life, in my history of flying that has the performance, the acceleration—keep in mind this thing had no wings.
You know, you see a lot of interesting things. But to come up on something that’s a 40-foot-long white Tic Tac with no wings, that can move really in any random direction that it wants and go from hovering over the ocean to mirroring us to accelerating to the point where it just disappears—like, poof, then it was gone.”
[excerpted from an ABC News interview]
“I can tell you, I think it was not from this world. I’ve seen pretty much about everything that I can see in that realm, and this was nothing close. I have never seen anything in my life, in my history of flying that has the performance, the acceleration—keep in mind this thing had no wings.
You know, you see a lot of interesting things. But to come up on something that’s a 40-foot-long white Tic Tac with no wings, that can move really in any random direction that it wants and go from hovering over the ocean to mirroring us to accelerating to the point where it just disappears—like, poof, then it was gone.”
What's that, then?
How do you know?
Sorry? Explain that to me slowly. We know that he has no agenda, because he described what he saw. Nobody who describes what they saw ever has an agenda, then? But we come back to the question of by what magical means do you know that he described what he saw?
You talk as if you know what he saw. Do you? And how do you know?
You're accusing me of defaming somebody? Please explain. Who have I defamed, and how?
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
A phenomenon can be very well established and evidenced and still not have an overwhelming consensus of believers. Evolution for example is very well established but only about a third of Americans believe in the scientific version of it. Why would that be? Because not everybody has the same amount of exposure to or education in such things. Likewise with ufos. The evidence is out there for all to discover. But that takes initiative and incentive to learn about that subject. Most people are probably too busy with other things to do the actual research into ufos to see that they are a real phenomenon. But again that reflects on the people themselves and not on the reliability of the evidence itself. Anybody can examine the actual cases now via the internet. The information is out there. It's just a matter of searching it out for yourself.
Hundreds of accounts thruout history of ufos landing with beings exiting them and collecting plant and soil samples. Start here:
http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/Landings.htm
Maybe they only want to reveal themselves to the people who can handle that truth. It would make sense that they would simultaneously fly about in craft lit up like discos while never really announcing themselves to the governments of the world. Like they were only making themselves present to certain people.
The only thing you ever expose here is your own insecurity over your own worldview and how threatened you feel by phenomena that can't be explained by mundane factors. Which is why you spend so much time here in the Fringe section performing for some imaginary audience of cheering fans. This is a huge ego boost for you and a sort of sacred crusade for your holy cause of scientific reasoning at all costs. Unfortunately it really just shows how pathetically in need of self-importance and fame you are. If you had anywhere near like a fulfilling life you wouldn't need all this puffing yourself up like this. But evidently you don't, which is really sad.
Last edited:
Yazata,
In this case, there is no obvious agreement between different modes of observation, or between different observers. The relevant observations tend to be separated in both time and space - i.e. they were made by different witnesses in different places at different times. There's no way to guarantee that all witnesses were observing the same thing(s).
Air travel is extraordinarily safe these days, largely as a direct outcome of changes made based on knowledge gained from previous crash investigations. But planes still crash. What is interesting is that when a plane crashes there is almost never a single cause. The striking thing is that in almost every case there is a confluence of several separate contributing causes that leads to the eventual accident. More often than not, any single one of those causes on its own would be insufficient to cause the crash, but in combination they lead to disaster.
A "problematic" UFO sighting is a bit like an air crash. The vast majority of UFO sightings are easily dismissed. Sighting of the planets (Venus, Mars, Jupiter etc.) account for a huge number of UFO reports, for instance. Those mistaken identifications have single, fairly obvious (to a knowledgable observer) causes. After we eliminate the easy cases, we are left with the few problematic cases. The problematic cases that have been solved usually turn out, like those air crash investigations, to have several different causes. Factors combine in such a way that people tend to jump to the conclusion that it was mysterious craft in the air, but it turns out that different mistakes were made by different people, or that different people were actually observing different things rather than the same, single thing.
When it comes to reports of mysterious objects apparently violating the laws of physics, or at least vastly outperforming any known human aircraft, caution demands that we take more than the usual amount of care in checking that we are, in fact, dealing with a single object rather than several different and unrelated observations.
In this particular case, it is not at all clear that a single object is involved.
I have seen enough of these kinds of cases, and I have enough background knowledge, that I'm not about to jump to the conclusion that there was a mysterious object with superhuman manoeuvering ability until there is very strong evidence for such a thing. Besides that, the possibility that aliens are visiting Earth is extraordinarily unlikely, which is all the more reason to demand strong evidence from anybody claiming that such a thing is occurring.
I thought you might take my comment that way, but it's out of context. Read what I wrote immediately following that.
In this case, there is no obvious agreement between different modes of observation, or between different observers. The relevant observations tend to be separated in both time and space - i.e. they were made by different witnesses in different places at different times. There's no way to guarantee that all witnesses were observing the same thing(s).
This is not a case of "normal military procedure". This is an unusual event, clearly, or we wouldn't be making such a fuss about it.
That's an easy assumption to make, but in the case of an unusual event like this one we have to be more careful. Mistakes just like this assumption have been made in the past in UFO cases.
It's conceivable that there was less than one alien spaceship.
I'm a bit of a fan of the TV show Air Crash Investigations. One reason is that, episode after episode, it shows careful and thorough investigators working through every detail of a situation to work out what actually happened.
Air travel is extraordinarily safe these days, largely as a direct outcome of changes made based on knowledge gained from previous crash investigations. But planes still crash. What is interesting is that when a plane crashes there is almost never a single cause. The striking thing is that in almost every case there is a confluence of several separate contributing causes that leads to the eventual accident. More often than not, any single one of those causes on its own would be insufficient to cause the crash, but in combination they lead to disaster.
A "problematic" UFO sighting is a bit like an air crash. The vast majority of UFO sightings are easily dismissed. Sighting of the planets (Venus, Mars, Jupiter etc.) account for a huge number of UFO reports, for instance. Those mistaken identifications have single, fairly obvious (to a knowledgable observer) causes. After we eliminate the easy cases, we are left with the few problematic cases. The problematic cases that have been solved usually turn out, like those air crash investigations, to have several different causes. Factors combine in such a way that people tend to jump to the conclusion that it was mysterious craft in the air, but it turns out that different mistakes were made by different people, or that different people were actually observing different things rather than the same, single thing.
When it comes to reports of mysterious objects apparently violating the laws of physics, or at least vastly outperforming any known human aircraft, caution demands that we take more than the usual amount of care in checking that we are, in fact, dealing with a single object rather than several different and unrelated observations.
In this particular case, it is not at all clear that a single object is involved.
Yes. But we know that there were a number of aircraft in the air simultaneously, apparently including drones (which I didn't know until recently). Moreover, there's no guarantee that the only (human-operated) aircraft in the area were US military aircraft.
The term "something in physical reality" is a pretty malleable one. I don't think anybody here disagrees that there was "something in physical reality", or perhaps a number of different somethings. The question is: what? A spurious radar echo is "something in physical reality", from one point of view. It's real as far as the radar operator is aware.
I think that you are I only disagree on the weight that we give to the available evidence in this case. We both agree, I hope, on the need to collect reliable evidence and such - something that Magical Realist has no interest in.
I have seen enough of these kinds of cases, and I have enough background knowledge, that I'm not about to jump to the conclusion that there was a mysterious object with superhuman manoeuvering ability until there is very strong evidence for such a thing. Besides that, the possibility that aliens are visiting Earth is extraordinarily unlikely, which is all the more reason to demand strong evidence from anybody claiming that such a thing is occurring.
(continued...)
It's always possible that the Russians, or somebody, have secretly made some kind of quantum leap in airplane technology, without US intelligence having any whiff of it. But it seems very unlikely to me, for multiple reasons.
The thing is, though, do my motives even matter? Let's assume you and Magical Realist are spot on about my motivations, for the sake of argument. Let's say I'm terrified at the prospect of there being something I can't explain in the world, and I just can't stomach the idea. So, I lash out with ... what? Some reasonable questions about the lack of good evidence? It hardly seems like the mark of a fanatic.
But if you're going to speculate on my possible motives, then it is only fair that you allow me to speculate on yours, or on Magical Realist's. So I wrote that some people want to believe in magic. Magical Realist's name ought to give you some hint about how that might apply to him, just for starters. But, more importantly, look at his behaviour when it comes to discussions like this one. He starts with the assumption that it's aliens, every time, invariably.
In your case, I might speculate that your motivation for siding with MR on this is that you think scientists and skeptics tend to be uppity know-it-alls who are overestimating what they know about the world. That might be correct, or it might be wrong, just like your assumption about my motives.
My point is: our motives for arguing one or the other side in this matter aren't the important thing. It doesn't matter how fervently MR wishes aliens were real. His wishing alone doesn't move the evidence any further towards the alien side. Nor does my wishing that all the alien nonsense would just go away (assuming that's what I wish, which might not be the best assumption) sway the evidence towards my side of the argument.
I don't think there's anything false about pointing this out.
From my point of view, I can't be sure there was an object. Regarding the sighting in the ocean, a submarine or a whale both seem very likely possibilities. Regarding radar images, the fact that this was a new system with unfamiliar operators and possibly with software glitches, makes me suspicious of the radar evidence. Regarding IR footage from jets, the explanation that they were filming ordinary jet exhausts seems very likely.
Reports of UFO performance are often wildly inaccurate. When we hear anecdotes about great speed we should always ask how this was measured. Often, it turns out that it's just somebody's guess, based on eyeballing whatever it was they thought they were watching.
It makes a lot of sense that the Navy will want to investigate any unidentified aircraft entering US airspace. They could be foreign threats. If there is a stigma against reporting unidentified objects, that will tend to discourage reporting of what might be real aircraft.
That 40 miles in less than a minute thing is based on what? A couple of eyewitness statements? One eyewitness? I'm not totally across it. The same goes for what was actually seen on radar. It seems to me that we only have anecdotal reports about that. The radar records are not available, are they? The only hovering observed was that reported by Fravor, wasn't it? Hence submarines and whales.
You see it as dismissal, but I'm still here talking to you about it. What have I dismissed, without due consideration? As I see it, I've merely raised some sensible questions for those who support the hypothesis that there was something out of this world.
Like what? Russian planes?
It's always possible that the Russians, or somebody, have secretly made some kind of quantum leap in airplane technology, without US intelligence having any whiff of it. But it seems very unlikely to me, for multiple reasons.
We're all speculating, unless and until investigators sort out what happened.
Not at all. You suggested that skeptics like myself are not giving alien-believers like yourself a fair hearing because of our personal preferences about what the world ought to be like. You wrote that you think our (my) motivation is "People would much prefer to believe that their immediate surroundings operate according to principles that are fully understood in all the important aspects" and so on. This is your speculation on my motives for questioning whether this UFO is an alien visitation.
The thing is, though, do my motives even matter? Let's assume you and Magical Realist are spot on about my motivations, for the sake of argument. Let's say I'm terrified at the prospect of there being something I can't explain in the world, and I just can't stomach the idea. So, I lash out with ... what? Some reasonable questions about the lack of good evidence? It hardly seems like the mark of a fanatic.
But if you're going to speculate on my possible motives, then it is only fair that you allow me to speculate on yours, or on Magical Realist's. So I wrote that some people want to believe in magic. Magical Realist's name ought to give you some hint about how that might apply to him, just for starters. But, more importantly, look at his behaviour when it comes to discussions like this one. He starts with the assumption that it's aliens, every time, invariably.
In your case, I might speculate that your motivation for siding with MR on this is that you think scientists and skeptics tend to be uppity know-it-alls who are overestimating what they know about the world. That might be correct, or it might be wrong, just like your assumption about my motives.
My point is: our motives for arguing one or the other side in this matter aren't the important thing. It doesn't matter how fervently MR wishes aliens were real. His wishing alone doesn't move the evidence any further towards the alien side. Nor does my wishing that all the alien nonsense would just go away (assuming that's what I wish, which might not be the best assumption) sway the evidence towards my side of the argument.
I don't think there's anything false about pointing this out.
Magical Realist:
So, let me be more specific. If, as you claim, the existence of piloted craft with extraordinary superhuman manoeuverability was well established, then I would expect the consensus among scientists and skeptics and experts in aviation would be that these things are real. But there is no such consensus.
Now, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that you think scientists are part of a secret conspiracy to suppress knowledge of little green men. And I already know about your bias against skeptics. You hate them (us) because we threaten to upset your apple cart far too often. But where are all the non-scientists, non-skeptical aviation experts who accept that the aliens - or their aircraft - are real? Are they all too afraid to speak up or something? Maybe the Scientific Cabal is suppressing them?
Every now and then, you alien nuts let the mask slip, giving the rest of us insights into what aliens are to you. It's often a bit like a search for a missing father figure, or for somebody to validate your existence by acknowledging your special status. It's fascinating.
I hope our audience here isn't entirely imaginary. I'd hate to think that it's just you I'm writing this for. That would represented a wasted investment of my time.
Fame, you say? Well, on the one hand, for all you know I might already be famous. Maybe I'm Lady Gaga. On the other hand, do you really think that if I wanted to seek out fame and fortune I'd be doing it on a somewhat obscure science forum floating in the vast virtual ocean of the internet? I can think of better ways to become famous.
You want to know why I really do this? Because it's fun. This is one of the things I do in my spare time. Not, by any means, the only thing, in case you're wondering.
How are things with you?
I take your point, and you're right. Something can be well established, yet not widely believed.
So, let me be more specific. If, as you claim, the existence of piloted craft with extraordinary superhuman manoeuverability was well established, then I would expect the consensus among scientists and skeptics and experts in aviation would be that these things are real. But there is no such consensus.
Now, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that you think scientists are part of a secret conspiracy to suppress knowledge of little green men. And I already know about your bias against skeptics. You hate them (us) because we threaten to upset your apple cart far too often. But where are all the non-scientists, non-skeptical aviation experts who accept that the aliens - or their aircraft - are real? Are they all too afraid to speak up or something? Maybe the Scientific Cabal is suppressing them?
From my side, I think that most people are probably too busy with other things to do the research to see that UFOs (aliens) are not a real phenomenon. Or else they don't know what to do to put themselves in a position to make an informed judgment on the matter. You don't have that excuse. You're wilfully ignorant.
These are aliens you're talking about. Putting themselves in the mindset of human beings, in order to discern whether they might be able to, for instance, handle the truth, would be like you trying to think like an octopus in order to work out whether it was ready for the truth.
Every now and then, you alien nuts let the mask slip, giving the rest of us insights into what aliens are to you. It's often a bit like a search for a missing father figure, or for somebody to validate your existence by acknowledging your special status. It's fascinating.
He he. The danger in this kind of thing is that you end up giving yourself away through your projection of your own insecurities onto others.
I hope our audience here isn't entirely imaginary. I'd hate to think that it's just you I'm writing this for. That would represented a wasted investment of my time.
Fame, you say? Well, on the one hand, for all you know I might already be famous. Maybe I'm Lady Gaga. On the other hand, do you really think that if I wanted to seek out fame and fortune I'd be doing it on a somewhat obscure science forum floating in the vast virtual ocean of the internet? I can think of better ways to become famous.
You want to know why I really do this? Because it's fun. This is one of the things I do in my spare time. Not, by any means, the only thing, in case you're wondering.
How are things with you?
Seriously???
They have been coming here for eons and apart from the magic machines they fly they have one which can detect humans who can handle that truth
Seriously a tremendous breakthrough. However it seems to
- be defective or
- have never ever in the eons of visits came across a ufologists
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Actually no he didn't. You even quoted his statement about that:
"You know, you see a lot of interesting things. But to come up on something that’s a 40-foot-long white Tic Tac with no wings, that can move really in any random direction that it wants and go from hovering over the ocean to mirroring us to accelerating to the point where it just disappears—like, poof, then it was gone.”
A visual estimate of a craft's length by an experienced Navy pilot is certainly more reliable than anything you have to say about it. You know why? Because you weren't there and he was.
Note also that whales are not prone to zip around in the sky and change direction like a ping pong ball like Fravor described.
I'm entitled to speculations about what these beings motives are just like you are entitled to speculations about flying whales and supersonic drones. Why wouldn't an advanced being know what is good for us and what isn't? They may have been studying us for millions of years by now. Jane Goodal knew chimp psychology pretty well by the time her studies were completed. These beings may know us better than we know ourselves, even assuming they aren't telepathic.
Sounds like a conclusion he reached after having his encounter with the objects. Like I said, that's what the ufo phenomenon shows us--a craft beyond any capabilities humans presently have. Doesn't have to be an agenda he had before he saw the objects.
Last edited:
Can I have a pre release USB mp3 copy of your next block buster album please with autograph?
Thanks in anticipation
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Apparently some people feel that any admission of the possibility that unidentified flying objects might objectively exist in physical reality is equivalent somehow with belief in "LGM".
The foremost problem that I see with that is that it excludes the possibility of acknowledging unfamiliar new aerial phenomena, simply by fiat.
I posted the following quotation maybe a year ago to the 'Power of Anomalies' thread (post #49):
http://sciforums.com/threads/the-power-of-anomalies.161155/page-3#post-3540215
"In 1790 a fireball was reported over Barbotan in southern France, which locals said exploded and resulted in a shower of stones. Naturalist Jean Saint-Amans requested official testimonies, expecting that he wouldn't receive any. Instead he got a signed affidavit from the mayor, along with the sworn affidavits of 300 witnesses (at least one of whom was a university professor). Saint-Amans forwarded it to his friend Pierre Bertholon, editor of the Journal des Sciences Utile. The latter published the affidavit, along with a lament that so many Frenchmen obviously hadn't yet awakened to the Age of Reason:
"How sad, is it not, to see a whole municipality attempt to certify the truth of folk tales... the philosophical reader will draw his own conclusions regarding this document, which attests to an apparently false fact, a physically impossible phenomenon."
(Described on pp. 14 and 15 of Meteorite: Nature and Culture by Maria Golia (2015, Reaktion Books)"
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 meteor "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 is.
The foremost problem that I see with that is that it excludes the possibility of acknowledging unfamiliar new aerial phenomena, simply by fiat.
I posted the following quotation maybe a year ago to the 'Power of Anomalies' thread (post #49):
http://sciforums.com/threads/the-power-of-anomalies.161155/page-3#post-3540215
"In 1790 a fireball was reported over Barbotan in southern France, which locals said exploded and resulted in a shower of stones. Naturalist Jean Saint-Amans requested official testimonies, expecting that he wouldn't receive any. Instead he got a signed affidavit from the mayor, along with the sworn affidavits of 300 witnesses (at least one of whom was a university professor). Saint-Amans forwarded it to his friend Pierre Bertholon, editor of the Journal des Sciences Utile. The latter published the affidavit, along with a lament that so many Frenchmen obviously hadn't yet awakened to the Age of Reason:
"How sad, is it not, to see a whole municipality attempt to certify the truth of folk tales... the philosophical reader will draw his own conclusions regarding this document, which attests to an apparently false fact, a physically impossible phenomenon."
(Described on pp. 14 and 15 of Meteorite: Nature and Culture by Maria Golia (2015, Reaktion Books)"
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 meteor "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 is.
Last edited:
Ummmm 1790
OK
That might very well be correct IF IF IF currently our education level has been static since 1790
Oh, so he actually thought it was a giant flying tic tac, and not just something that looked like one? Okay, whatever you say.
Not really.
The question is: was the giant tic tac there?
I noticed that. Planes and drones, however, are prone to zipping around in the sky and changing direction.
You're getting way ahead of yourself. There's no point in speculating about beings until you've established that there are beings to speculate about. All we have established so far on that front is that you'd tremendously like there to be beings.
Exactly my point. Now you're getting it!
What craft?
No. Apparently he decided to do media after he "saw" the objects.
Last edited:
Yazata,
The point has been made many times here that a UFO is just that: unidentified. When Magical Realist, or yourself, insists that it is a "craft", you're positing an identification of it as such, obviously.
Nobody on this forum has ever denied that people see stuff in the sky that they can't identify. The issue is when you make unwarranted leaps to the conclusion that the space aliens are here.
Here we are, having a discussion about a particular incident. It is obvious that we are all admitting that there's something to discuss, not denying the possibility of something interesting, as you claim. Where we part company is where you start drawing conclusions that are not supported by the evidence.
---
On another topic, why did you ignore most of my previous two lengthy posts to you?
Do they? Whatever you say.
The point has been made many times here that a UFO is just that: unidentified. When Magical Realist, or yourself, insists that it is a "craft", you're positing an identification of it as such, obviously.
Nobody on this forum has ever denied that people see stuff in the sky that they can't identify. The issue is when you make unwarranted leaps to the conclusion that the space aliens are here.
Do you think there's a new aerial phenomenon to be examined in this case? To me it looks like same old, same old.
I think you're dragging your coat on this one.
Here we are, having a discussion about a particular incident. It is obvious that we are all admitting that there's something to discuss, not denying the possibility of something interesting, as you claim. Where we part company is where you start drawing conclusions that are not supported by the evidence.
---
On another topic, why did you ignore most of my previous two lengthy posts to you?
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Epic quibbler is still epic.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
He has been knowingly posting ufo cases under that title for sometime now.
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
Well, it is a ufo and this is what you have to say about ufos:
''intelligences behind ufos''
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Yeah,.,there are intelligences behind ufos. So what?