UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Magical Realist said:
Whatever you say..
Click to expand...
Perfect. So, you acknowledge a double standard.

When it suits your purpose, an out-of-focus image is plenty to determine that it's not a certain object. When it does not suit your purpose, you reverse your standard and an out-of-focus image is not enough for you to make anything out.

And this is what Magical Realist think is rational analysis.

Just so we have that on record.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Perfect. So, you acknowledge a double standard.

When it suits your purpose, an out-of-focus image is plenty to determine that it's not a certain object. When it does not suit your purpose, you reverse your standard and an out-of-focus image is not enough for you to make anything out.

And this is what Magical Realist think is rational analysis.

Just so we have that on record.
Click to expand...
So true...
Time for a quote concerning this gullibility and nonsense.....

"There's a fascinating frailty of the human mind that psychologists know all about, called "argument from ignorance." This is how it goes. Remember what the "U" stands for in "UFO"? You see lights flashing in the sky. You've never seen anything like this before and don't understand what it is. You say, "It's a UFO!" The "U" stands for "unidentified." But then you say, "I don't know what it is; it must be aliens from outer space, visiting from another planet." The issue here is that if you don't know what something is, your interpretation of it should stop immediately. You don't then say it must be X or Y or Z. That's argument from ignorance. It's common. I'm not blaming anybody; it may relate to our burning need to manufacture answers because we feel uncomfortable about being steeped in ignorance."

NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON, Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier
 
paddoboy said:
So true...
Time for a quote concerning this gullibility and nonsense.....

"There's a fascinating frailty of the human mind that psychologists know all about, called "argument from ignorance." This is how it goes. Remember what the "U" stands for in "UFO"? You see lights flashing in the sky. You've never seen anything like this before and don't understand what it is. You say, "It's a UFO!" The "U" stands for "unidentified." But then you say, "I don't know what it is; it must be aliens from outer space, visiting from another planet." The issue here is that if you don't know what something is, your interpretation of it should stop immediately. You don't then say it must be X or Y or Z. That's argument from ignorance. It's common. I'm not blaming anybody; it may relate to our burning need to manufacture answers because we feel uncomfortable about being steeped in ignorance."

NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON, Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier
Click to expand...

Did anybody ask him what books he read about UFO's ? Otherwise ironically he then , himself is steep in ignorance , Having not read any book on the topic , of UFO's .
 
river said:
Did anybody ask him what books he read about UFO's ? Otherwise ironically he then , himself is steep in ignorance .
Click to expand...
He is a professor of science and as such is more knowledgable then your own questionable knowledge, or more correctly lack there of, of the science involved and as evident by your exclusion from science threads.
He also talks common sense, unlike yourself.
It is your ignorance that is in question, and gullibility, not his.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Perfect. So, you acknowledge a double standard.

When it suits your purpose, an out-of-focus image is plenty to determine that it's not a certain object. When it does not suit your purpose, you reverse your standard and an out-of-focus image is not enough for you to make anything out.

And this is what Magical Realist think is rational analysis.

Just so we have that on record.
Click to expand...

It depends how out of focus and what would therefore be unrecognizable. While the video of the white/silver disc is a little out of focus, it's not so out of focus that any possible wings or tail become invisible. You should still be able to see them. But you can't. The fly photo that you showed out of focus WAS out of focus enough to make it unrecognizable. It's always a matter of degree of obfuscation vs. degree of visibility. Anything else you wanna spend whole pages of this thread to try and catch me on?
 
https://www.sciencealert.com/ufo-nasa-iss-sighting-debunked-fireballs-video-james-oberg-not-aliens

This Former NASA Engineer Has Debunked Pretty Much Every Online UFO Sighting

FIONA MACDONALD
21 NOVEMBER 2017
You've probably seen more than your fair share of stories about UFO sightings. An astronaut on the ISS just has to catch footage of a fireball shooting across Earth's skies, and conspiracy theorists have a field day. Whether it's clouds that look like spaceships or rogue meteors, the internet loves a good alien conspiracy.
more at link....


extract:
Our human senses are so used to focussing on relatively slow-moving objects, as well as certain light and atmosphere conditions, that when things change, our brains get confused.

"Our sensory system is functioning absolutely perfectly for Earth conditions," Oberg told Giaimo. "But we're still a local civilisation. Moving beyond our neighbourhood has been visually confusing."

Some of the most common sighting he has to debunk are to do with NASA astronauts reportedly seeing UFOS and being forced to keep silent, which Oberg says is a result of us watching too much sci-fi and not really understanding what space really looks like.

"I've had enough experience with real spaceflight to realise that what's being seen in many videos is nothing beyond the 'norm' from fully mundane phenomena occurring in unearthly settings," Oberg writes over on his site."
 
The issue here is that if you don't know what something is, your interpretation of it should stop immediately. You don't then say it must be X or Y or Z.
Click to expand...

Precisely. So that rules out it being anything known like a plane, a bird, a cloud, or a weather balloon. It remains a type of object that we are unfamiliar with, such as a silver disc, or a 40 ft tic tac, or a black triangle, or a spinning top.
 
New
↑
Did anybody ask him what books he read about UFO's ? Otherwise ironically he then , himself is steep in ignorance .
Click to expand...

paddoboy said:
He is a professor of science and as such is more knowledgable then your own questionable knowledge, or more correctly lack there of, of the science involved and as evident by your exclusion from science threads.
He also talks common sense, unlike yourself.
It is your ignorance that is in question, and gullibility, not his.
Click to expand...

As a professor of science , ( astrophysics really) then Naturally he would have further investigated written documents on the subject .
 
Magical Realist said:
Precisely. So that rules out it being anything known like a plane, a bird, a cloud, or a weather balloon. It remains a type of object that we are unfamiliar with, such as a silver disc, or a 40 ft tic tac, or a black triangle, or a spinning top.
Click to expand...
You've been shown pics flying objects in which wings cannot be discerned. That is not the same as not having wings.
 
river said:
Not obviously .

Nobody knows the books Tyson has read , if any .
Click to expand...
I don't need to read Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs to understand its a fairy tale....Tyson does not need to read all books on UFO's to understand that claiming they are Alien is nonsense, and that at best, they simply remain as Unidentified.
Tyson's intelligence and professionalism is not in question here: It is your gullibility and ignorance that is in question again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top