UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Q-reeus said:
ALL one has, and all one can have, is circumstantial evidence.
Click to expand...
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.


Q-reeus said:
ALL one has, and all one can have, is circumstantial evidence.
Click to expand...
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.
 
DaveC426913 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Q-reeus said:
What's laughable and simultaneously lamentable, is the all too predictable unreasonableness of the SF 'debunker' brigades demands for 'proof'.
Click to expand...
Skeptics recognise that "proof" is very seldom available in science. There are only degrees of evidential support for a hypothesis, ranging from "none at all" to "extremely well supported by a huge number of observations/experiments", with the evidence itself falling into categories like "ludicrous", "weak and unpersuasive", "suggestive", "plausible", "persuasive", "definitive".

On that scale, I'd rate the totality of evidence for alien spaceships visiting Earth as weak and unpersuasive. And I'd rate the totality of evidence for mischievous extradimensional brings who like to cosplay as ghosts and UFOs as ludicrous.

Yazata (and myself) has ably fingered that 'proof' word as totally inappropriate given the (from a human perspective anyway) totally random and unpredictable nature of UFO encounters.
Click to expand...
Strange. The UFO encounter reports you guys keep serving up seem to be quite predictable to me. They always involve strange things seen in the sky that witness claim to move in mysterious ways.

Try telling Magical Realist that his UFOs are all random and unpredictable. According to him, every UFO is a "craft" that has a "pilot" and is "intelligently controlled". It is able to perform acts of extreme acceleration and to appear to defy the laws of physics. Hardly random and unpredictable.

On the other hand, maybe you don't really mean everything about UFOs is "totally random and unpredictable". Maybe you just mean that the times the encounters occur is unpredictable, or something. You should probably explain what you mean.

ALL one has, and all one can have, is circumstantial evidence.
Click to expand...
Isn't all evidence - for anything - "circumstantial"? What do you mean, exactly?
Q-reeus said:
BS.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. You're just angry that DaveC has you pegged, again.
 
James R said:
Skeptics recognise that "proof" is very seldom available in science....
Click to expand...
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?
 
James R said:
Notice the way that Magical Realist always tries to move onto something else when he finds that he has no adequate response?
Click to expand...
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:''
 
Last edited:
Q-reeus said:
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:
Click to expand...

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.

Q-reeus said:
insidious method of demonizing
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
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.
Click to expand...
So much irony. I call troll.
 
Try telling Magical Realist that his UFOs are all random and unpredictable. According to him, every UFO is a "craft" that has a "pilot" and is "intelligently controlled". It is able to perform acts of extreme acceleration and to appear to defy the laws of physics. Hardly random and unpredictable.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Beer w/Straw said:
I'm not mentally stable (burp :leaf:)but, this thread has gone beyond any rational thought.

So, just shut up.
Click to expand...
True. Self-acknowledged drug abuse and almost continual inebriation therefore disqualifies you from having any sensible input. So - take your own medicine!
 
Beer w/Straw said:
Go Fuck yourself.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Beer w/Straw said:
Do you think my response was not fitting?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Q-reeus said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wow!

You intellectually destroyed me.

Be gentle!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top