UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Perfect.

Pleading for leniency is the next step.

See, the same argument is used for God. "You know we can never prove it, so you have to cut us some slack in what is required to convince."

And that is not an argument that favours believers.

That being said, it's also not true.
One of these things could crash, or or drop an alien cellphone, or land in front of a news team, or land on the Whitehouse lawn.
There are innumerable ways that proof could come - like with every other advancement in human knowledge.

The fact that they don't is not the skeptic's problem; it's yours.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

BS. A carefully selected excerpt from my last post, quoted twice for double impact! Too bad each subsequent 'impact' had the brute full force of a feather duster.
My position hasn't changed over the course of my involvement in this (and other UFO related) thread(s). Here, refresh your evidently sieve-like memory:
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3684658
As if you haven't been confronted with that personal position statement of mine many times already. YES YOU HAVE! And your plea is what? Idiocy? Alzheimer's? Well?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then logically, James R is not really a 'scientifically minded' skeptic! Which I will 'prove' below.
The following briefly searched, inexhaustive list contains posts of considerable length. I believe in responsible replies respecting enquirers limited patience.
That said, just use the universally browser independent Ctrl+F together with proof and/or proves as search words (sometimes as confirmatory of a quote) in the following posts:

http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3679027/
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3659110/
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3643819/
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3627234/
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3616481/
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3602557/
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3601493/
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3601101/

And a choice post that exemplifies James R's and fellow 'SF debunker's' insidious method of demonizing actually very reliable and reputable first-hand witness individuals:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/in-defence-of-space-aliens.160045/page-152#post-3601491
What more is there to say?

 

One big quote from ''vice.com'' , perhaps MR meant to place it in the cut and paste favourite quote thread?

Magical Realist's take on it is: ''Canadian pilots are reporting ufos. Here's some accounts of those encounters:''

 

I call rat. I think you're yankin' our chain here. The above says "here's a bunch of contextless links to things you've just read, now use your search tool to find ... stuff. QED!"

This is so silly, it has to be filed in the 'Q is just screwing with us' file.

Whaaaaat? Q-reeus resorting to an emotional argument where rational analysis is called for? Whaaaaaaat??

Why, its almost like he feels comfortable attacking the discussers more than the discussion...



Notably, missing from this post:
1] Q-reeus calling for a huff and leaving in it.
2] Asking James R if he's going to get banned this time.

 

So much irony. I call troll.

 

It seems you do not know the meaning of either word.

Perhaps we get back the business at-hand. Or do you need to a few more posts to fling your poop around?

 

The random element that comes into play is where ufos pop up. There's no predicting it, although that government report released back in July said sightings often occur at weapons testing sites and military bases. Why that would be so is a matter of speculation, but maybe they have concern over our abilities to destroy ourselves and our whole planet. That suggests benevolent motives behind their presence, as if ready to intervene should a nuclear attack ever occur. Hopefully it will never come to that.

Here's an example of an encounter that occurred in 1975 at Loring Air Force Base in Limestone, Maine, a facility in which nuclear weapons were stored.



"As agreed by authorities around the world, these truly unexplainable unidentified flying objects appear solid, metallic and luminous, able to operate with speeds and maneuvers that defy the laws of physics. And, most chilling of all, they often behave as if under intelligent control..."

By Leslie Kean, Contributor

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-extraordinary-ufo-sig_b_1342585

 

I thought you didn't speculate.

 

Another high reliability recounting of vetted/trained thus mentally stable, responsible, accountable, multiply and simultaneously observed, military personnel. One of many such before and since. Dismissed with a wave of the hand by the armchair SF 'skeptics'. Actually out and out scoffers. Too deeply committed to a mindset of 'only 'scientific' material phenomena CAN exist'. The trauma, the humiliation of admitting to have been wrong all along inducing a reactive defensive position. Scoffing/trolling/misrepresentation/denigration etc. Anything and everything except a truly objective assessment. Deniers - quite a twist on such creeps subservience to that loaded word in other, 'approved' contexts.

Demand PROOF! When the contextual unreasonableness of that tactic is laid bare, just obfuscate and/or go for personal assaults i.e. tackle the man not the ball.
Too easy, and thus worthless.

 

I'm not mentally stable (burp

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)but, this thread has gone beyond any rational thought.

So, just shut up.

​

 

True. Self-acknowledged drug abuse and almost continual inebriation therefore disqualifies you from having any sensible input. So - take your own medicine!

 

Go Fuck yourself.

 

Here at SF, true freedom of expression/thought is actually punished with threats. That prevailing 'culture' ably supported by devotees of Ingsoc who wholeheartedly expend their five minutes of hate against proscribed thought crime rebels.
But I digress somewhat. Penny to a pound your foul-mouthed choice advice will face zero censure from the mods here. Contrary to the dictates of forum rules/guidelines. All that matters in practice is conformity to political correctness.

 

Do you think my response was not fitting?

 

Ha ha ha ha. You actually can't determine that much from my last post?! I will charitably put your above down to attempted humor.
Now, any serious comment on MR's excellently chosen link to
? Notice I did specify serious comment. That implies attention to detail in content provided. Not everyone possesses such 'life skills'. Just sayin.

 

Wow!

You intellectually destroyed me.

Be gentle!

 

True candor is always appreciated. I'll be gentle if you will too. Reciprocation. Simples.

 

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ufos-at-nuclear-missile-site-eyewitnesses-afraid-to-talk_n_881802
Fear is a highly underrated factor.

[The same time-worn story. Official denials/disinfo or downplaying at best, vs actual personnel directly involved. Whistle blowing at considerable personal risk.]