UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
"The Military has dealt with UFO sightings for quite some time now. One interesting quote about the phenomenon comes from Lionel M. Chassin, General of the French Air Forces:
“The number of thoughtful, intelligent, educated people in full possession of their faculties who have ‘seen something’ and described it grows every day…We can…say categorically that mysterious objects have indeed appeared and continue to appear in the sky that surrounds us… (they) unmistakably suggest a systematic aerial exploration and cannot be the result of chance. It indicates the purpose and intelligent action.”---- https://curiosmos.com/heres-a-compilation-of-ufo-quotes-proving-how-widespread-the-phenomenon-is/
“The number of thoughtful, intelligent, educated people in full possession of their faculties who have ‘seen something’ and described it grows every day…We can…say categorically that mysterious objects have indeed appeared and continue to appear in the sky that surrounds us… (they) unmistakably suggest a systematic aerial exploration and cannot be the result of chance. It indicates the purpose and intelligent action.”---- https://curiosmos.com/heres-a-compilation-of-ufo-quotes-proving-how-widespread-the-phenomenon-is/
Why not?
Something strange in the sky, or wherever, does not default to aliens, laws of physics being broken, extra dimensions or any other explanation other than Unknown
Point to ANY Law of Physics which is flexible and you might have a case of other laws also being flexible and the chance that the Unknown can become the Known
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Because a structured aerial wingless craft with illuminating lights performing extraordinary and even evasive flight maneuvers suggests highly intelligent intent, not some random fluke of nature.
Because a structured aerial craft with illuminating lights
Please post the best photo you have of such a craft
I did find this news item
https://www-space-com.cdn.ampprojec...errer=https://www.google.com&_tf=From %1$s
Not sure what to make of it
MY GUESS is a over abundance of caution with a hint of "we can't admit we don't know and look silly"
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
None of which is fact, simply description by witnesses.
A witness cannot truthfully say "There were no wings" - they can only truthfully say "No wings were apparent to my eye."
A witness cannot truthfully say "It accelerated to speed X to Y seconds." - they can only truthfully say "It appeared to go from here to there, and it appeared to do it very fast, and if I were to assume that wasn't an illusion of distance and/or perspective I'd guess it's about X."
Witnesses are really bad sources of evidence. This is fact.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
After thousands of eyewitness accounts repeating these same details about ufos, I'm pretty sure it's fact by now.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No - you keep making this mistake. Each event must be evaluated on its own merits.
Otherwise, by your logic, this is true:
There are lots of accounts of Bigfoot, and there are lots of accounts of Leprechauns, therefore Loch Ness is pretty much fact by now.
One mystery account does not lend credence to another.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
No..multiple sightings of ufos bears no comparison to your example. A Bigfoot looks nothing like a Leprechaun looks nothing like Loch Ness. Flying illuminated discs and ovals performing extraordinary flight maneuvers otoh do look the same. It's completely logical to posit their identity as the same phenomenon.
wegs:
If you're really interested to find out, try reading through the thread from the start. Admittedly, there's a lot of rubbish to wade through to get to the relevant bits.
Basically, the "fuss" is about MR's standards of evidence, or rather the lack thereof. MR's mind is so open that his brains are in imminent danger of falling out. He's willing to accept anything that he sees on youtube as gospel truth, with the curious exception of any material that expresses doubt on the subject of his blind faith: that little green men are visiting us on Earth in their little green tic-tac spaceships.
A few of us here have made various attempts to educate MR on what evidence is and how to evaluate it, but MR looks to be a rare example of somebody who is bright enough to learn but is ultimately uneducatable. He has had all the benefit of personal, targeted teaching for years now, but he is an unwilling learner. My own hypothesis is that there is something deeply needy about his desire for the woo to all be true. That is, I think that believing in all this stuff gives him some kind of feeling of belonging or satisfies some other psychological need he has, to the extent where he will go out of his way to ignore all the problems with the paltry evidences that he offers up.
The other main element of the "fuss", as you will see if you read through the thread, is that MR tends to go through cycles in which he periodically loses his temper whenever too many doubts are raised about his treasured beliefs. During times of heightened emotion, MR usually takes to personally insulting people. This has historically led to his temporary banning from sciforums. After some time out he usually settles down a little, but always returns with some new rubbish from youtube that he regards as the newest, shiniest bauble in his woo-dominated personal world. After he compulsively cuts and pastes his latest fad, the cycle starts again as sensible people raise questions about how much his latest "evidence" is really worth.
First and foremost, all claims ought to be supported by at least some evidence. For example, here's MR's latest (really, I could pick just about any of MR's posts at random as an example):
In passing, also note the false dichotomy MR tries to set up: either it is little green men, or it is a "random fluke of nature". There is no in-between, like a well-documented natural phenomenon or a human-made conventional aircraft. MR is not willing to seriously consider any alternatives to the woo, ever. He's even on the record as denying a number of water-tight disproofs of his various woo hypotheses. That is, even when presented with unequivocal evidence that his supposed woo event was something utterly mundane, he refuses to accept the evidence that disproves what he so desperately wants or needs to believe.
Don't believe me? Read through the thread.
Alternatively, try this thread, which examines one famous UFO case in a lot of detail:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/portage-county-ravenna-ufo-chase-1966.158484/
If you're really interested to find out, try reading through the thread from the start. Admittedly, there's a lot of rubbish to wade through to get to the relevant bits.
Basically, the "fuss" is about MR's standards of evidence, or rather the lack thereof. MR's mind is so open that his brains are in imminent danger of falling out. He's willing to accept anything that he sees on youtube as gospel truth, with the curious exception of any material that expresses doubt on the subject of his blind faith: that little green men are visiting us on Earth in their little green tic-tac spaceships.
A few of us here have made various attempts to educate MR on what evidence is and how to evaluate it, but MR looks to be a rare example of somebody who is bright enough to learn but is ultimately uneducatable. He has had all the benefit of personal, targeted teaching for years now, but he is an unwilling learner. My own hypothesis is that there is something deeply needy about his desire for the woo to all be true. That is, I think that believing in all this stuff gives him some kind of feeling of belonging or satisfies some other psychological need he has, to the extent where he will go out of his way to ignore all the problems with the paltry evidences that he offers up.
The other main element of the "fuss", as you will see if you read through the thread, is that MR tends to go through cycles in which he periodically loses his temper whenever too many doubts are raised about his treasured beliefs. During times of heightened emotion, MR usually takes to personally insulting people. This has historically led to his temporary banning from sciforums. After some time out he usually settles down a little, but always returns with some new rubbish from youtube that he regards as the newest, shiniest bauble in his woo-dominated personal world. After he compulsively cuts and pastes his latest fad, the cycle starts again as sensible people raise questions about how much his latest "evidence" is really worth.
Basically, any sensible convergence of evidence that suggests that the alien hypothesis that MR is pushing is real. Not the fuzzy photos of dubious provenance or the breathless "recreation" animations based on tall tales spun by self-promoting UFO "witnesses". Not the tales of government coverups and supposed conspiracies of the scientific establishment to hide "the Truth". Not the ambiguous physical evidence that could be the metal skin of a UFO but which could far more easily explained as part of a weather balloon.
First and foremost, all claims ought to be supported by at least some evidence. For example, here's MR's latest (really, I could pick just about any of MR's posts at random as an example):
MR has no actual evidence of a "structure", a "craft", "illuminated lights" attached to any UFO "craft", other than anecdotal accounts. The same goes for "extraordinary maneuvers", which he often cites. It usually turns out that nobody actually measured any extraordinary speeds or accelerations or whatever the latest thing is he is alleging; on the contrary, it's usually no better than somebody's guess, based on looking at something they didn't identify, often at an unknown distance from them.Magical Realist said:
In passing, also note the false dichotomy MR tries to set up: either it is little green men, or it is a "random fluke of nature". There is no in-between, like a well-documented natural phenomenon or a human-made conventional aircraft. MR is not willing to seriously consider any alternatives to the woo, ever. He's even on the record as denying a number of water-tight disproofs of his various woo hypotheses. That is, even when presented with unequivocal evidence that his supposed woo event was something utterly mundane, he refuses to accept the evidence that disproves what he so desperately wants or needs to believe.
Sure it can. The problem for UFO nuts is that honest review of the evidence, especially by unbiased experts, has always found UFO claims to be either disproved or unconfirmed.
Mostly, MR just mindlessly copies his latest youtube obsession. It's like a form of spam to the forum. And don't kid yourself that MR is open to changing his mind.
Don't believe me? Read through the thread.
Alternatively, try this thread, which examines one famous UFO case in a lot of detail:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/portage-county-ravenna-ufo-chase-1966.158484/
You have to keep in mind the mental state of most skeptics here. Demonstrably incompetent and even crackpot in their take on various aspects of physical science, they try and compensate by constantly demanding 'scientific proof' of UFO phenomena. A cheap way of labeling themselves as 'scientific' vs the 'woo merchants' who accept non-mundane UFO phenomena as obviously real.
They conveniently dodge the fact that by it's clearly unpredictable therefore unreproducible nature, non-mundane UFO phenomena automatically falls outside the domain of narrowly defined scientific inquiry. To dismiss or more generally scoff at phenomena merely because it's 'unscientific' by narrow definition, is not smart but stupid and illogical. A key unstated assumption being only the material world subject to reproducible investigation can exist.
That quote of French airforce general - and there are many similar from highly respected, high responsibility figures - sums it up pretty well. Accept the overwhelming wealth of evidence for intelligently controlled (thus likely whimsical in nature) encounters. Instead of playing at cheap trolling mind-game postings as worthless hobby. It doesn't actually cover for their incompetencies in real science. Chanting endlessly 'show me the scientific proof!' doesn't endow them with 'scientific' credentials in doing so.
The post you answered here is NOT comparing each of the three creatures against each other
EACH creature has enough sightings to be, by your low standards, proven to exist
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Yes. That is exactly what I do here..But I also think James' post effectively fails to answer your question with what amounts to nothing more than a whiney and resentful flame of my intelligence, personality, and character capped off by a ridiculous admonition to read this entire 3373 post thread. I would only ask you now who it is that is still making it personal here and putting people down and thriving on all the emotional drama here? Not me. I hate drama. I just present and argue for the evidence of ufos, not "little green men", which going by James' latest unprovoked and belligerent rant must be more convincing than I thought.
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Nope..
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
And you present and argue for...
''Beings'' ''Conscious pilots'' ''paranormal beings'' ''time travelers'' and ''interdimensionals''.
Their all there in these quotes from you MR.
''Beings''.
''conscious pilots''.
''time travelers, or paranormal beings.''
Still waiting on
Guess this is another Green Light Helicopter
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ oh well, back to having fun
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Don't be silly. They all have four limbs and a head, are all within an order of magnitude of the same size, all frequent the Northern Hemisphere, and are all very reclusive.
I could go on and on about the similarities. There is an unlimited list of similarities if I am motivated enough to go looking for them.
Not a chance.
Many sightings are not flying.
Many sightings are not illuminated.
Many sightings are not discs.
Many sightings are not ovals.
Many sightings are not performing extraordinary flight maneuvers.
Do you see how you embellish and conflate multiple independent accounts to make it look (quite falsely) as if they're all the same thing? That is scientifically dishonest.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Many sightings of what?
OMFG I TOTALLY HAVE TO GET A HOLD OF THESE DOCUMENTS!
IN YOU FACE UFO DENIERS!
IN YOU FACE UFO DENIERS!