Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by Magical Realist, Jun 17, 2016.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Magical Realist:

    You misunderstand how critical thinking is done.

    I have not retracted any possibility. Rather, I am examining three different possibilities to see which is the most likely and to see whether any of them can be ruled out. In other words, I am spinning multiple hypotheses and keeping an open mind. You, on the other hand ... well, not so much. You made up your mind right from the start. Didn't you?

    Right. It can't be a water droplet and a shadow and an alien spacecraft. But it might be any of those things, or something else again.

    Why are you not interested in trying to eliminate any of these possibilities? Is it because you decided what it was right from the start?

    I watched it. It has a second-hand account given in a voice-over. That's all. No documentation. No interviews with the pilots. Nothing. The "account" you refer to is hearsay at this point in time.

    You must be watching a different video to the one I posted above. Your "cylinder", or whatever it is, is just an ill-defined blur. Suggesting either that it is out of focus (perhaps close to the camera), or else that it is actually an ill-defined thing, like a shadow on a cloud, for example.

    That would be an inference, not a direct perception. If it clearly had the shape of a plane, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Though, in your case, you never know.

    You're quite wrong. Consider how the shadow of an aeroplane looks from the side. You don't see the wings; they are hidden in the shadow of the fuselage.

    Do you believe this is impossible? Do you have a rational reason for believing it to be impossible?

    The only "account" in the video is second or third hand.

    Recall that it is you who claims the object shown is extraordinary. Ergo, it is up to you to establish its extraordinary nature. The default position, as I have so often explained to you, is to look for a mundane explanation. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

    You see what you want to see. You want to see an alien spaceship, so that's what you see. The problem is that you won't even consider alternatives. Your mind is closed.

    I've made no claim that it is a shadow. Once again, you don't understand what I'm doing here. I am suggesting mundane explanations that have not yet been refuted. If you can refute them, good luck to you. I'll happily reject any hypothesis that is shown to be flawed. How about you?

    A few points:

    1. You did not provide the account in the video. You just found the video somewhere and posted it here. You have collected no evidence yourself, and in fact do not seem interested in examining any evidence.

    2. We are both running hypotheses here. Yours is that this is an alien spacecraft, a projection from the future, a pyramid-powered anomaly, the Ghost of Fu-Manchu, or some other paranormal thing. (You refuse to specify what you think it is, other than it is not mundane.) My hypotheses are currently that it is a shadow or a water droplet.

    If I am "making shit up" by running my hypotheses, then you are equally "making shit up" running yours. You see that, do you not? Unless you produce sufficient supporting argument or evidence that makes it more probable than not that this is an alien craft or whatever you think it is, you have not established your claim. If you then go on to insist, despite failing to make your case, that this thing is an alien craft or whatever, then you truly are "making shit up".

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    It's not clear to me what you're saying. Are you claiming that the cockpit configuration in your photo is the same as the one in the video, and that establishes the identity of the jet in the video? If so, please make this clear.

    Since it's your claim that the "account" in the video is true, it would help your case if you could prove that it is a Mig cockpit. I don't see why I should spend time doing your homework for you. If you think it important to dismiss the claim that it is not a Mig cockpit, then get up and do some work of your own.

    You see what you did there? First, you assume there is a "cylindrical craft", which you have completely failed to establish at this point. Then, you assume that said "craft" has pilots, for which you have even less evidence.

    I'm sorry, but you won't be able to sneak in assumptions about "craft" and "pilots" with me. You'll need to make a case for them.

    You would be willing to concede, I assume, that the object could be a mundane human-operated aircraft - perhaps a US plane, for example? They are cylindrical, after all, especially seen side-on.

    The films gives a second or third hand account. It is a film made and posted by people who are biased towards the existence of aliens. Even you must admit that.

    Wrong. My speculations have been based on the video footage. I have explained my reasoning clearly in both cases. That is, I have a clear basis for suggesting each hypthothesis.

    And you?

    I haven't made that suggestion up to this point. Perhaps something will turn up later in the discussion to suggest that might be case. It is, of course, possible that the footage is faked. But there's no smoking gun that I've noticed so far.

    You'll admit, of course, that fakery is possible, won't you?

    Again, you must be watching a different video. In what sense is the object in the video "sharply defined"? Is looks like a blurry blob to me. Please explain.

    I have already discussed the issue of "blue sky". If you wish to discuss that matter, please address the points I made previously about that.

    Specifically, a jet could cast a cylindrical shadow if it were banking at an appropriate angle to the Sun. You will, of course, admit that this is possible. Won't you?

    Again, you misunderstand the process of critical thinking. I have made no claim that it is faked.

    However, I am willing to investigate the possibility. I hope you are, too. Here's what I'll need for a start:
    • Where did the footage come from?
    • How did it come to be in the hands of the makers of the program from which that excerpt was taken?
    • Where is the original footage?
    • Who can vouch for its authenticity?
    Once you have provided that information, for a start, we will be in a better position - the two of us - to investigate the possibility of fakery. This assumes that no hint of fakery turns up in the video footage itself (assuming other people reading this thread watch it, or you and I re-watch it with a view to finding evidence of fakery).

    I agree that the possibility of fakery is not sufficient to establish fakery.
    You, in turn, will agree that the possibility that the object is an alien spaceship is not sufficient to establish that the object is an alien spaceship.


    We'll need evidence for the probability that it is an alien spaceship to consider your claim that it is an alien spaceship serious. Got none? Then you have no argument do you?

    I have not dismissed any evidence, as far as I am aware.

    What evidence do you believe I have dismissed regarding this particular video? Please be specific.

    My position is that the available evidence for your claim that this video shows an alien spacecraft is weak and unconvincing. That's all.

    Moreover, tellingly, you have been unable to refute my perfectly reasonable mundane alternative hypotheses, so far at least.

    You've now backed off, but you're still claiming there's a "craft" with "pilots". What is your evidence for that? Got any?

    You misunderstand the process of critical thinking.

    The water droplet hypothesis is just one more plausible explanation that does not require the introduction of space aliens in order to explain the video footage. I'll probably think of a few others before we're done with this.

    It's your job to make your case, and I must say you're not doing a good job of it so far. As far as I can see, you have nothing beyond the footage itself to bolster your case. Am I correct?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Here's another account with video of a Russian Mig's encounter with a ufo. Notice the merging of the two objects. This is a common aspect of many ufos. It defies reason, yet there it is! Now waiting for the psuedoskeptic's rationalization...

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    You can tell how desperate for an argument one is by the long drawn out ranting and constant excuses for not providing any evidence for your claims. How many different ways can you deny what you see right before you: a black cylinder flying thru the sky and caught on jet cockpit video? How much unevidenced bullshit about shadows on the sky and black water drops do we have to tolerate here, all in the sciency name of a "hypothesis"? My case stands firmly on its own merits: an account of Russian Migs chasing a ufo and even catching it on video. No claims of fakery have been provided. Only bogus speculations that don't even match the traits of the object. Psuedoskeptics will do anything to deny the evidence for ufos. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. What possible harm would come from admitting this to be an unknown flying object? Apparently enough to warrant longwinded repetitious denials and strawmen and pretentious displays of so-called "objective analysis".
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2016
  8. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Unidentified Flying Object is an unfortunate term because they are not all flying objects. For example, many are photographic effects.

    But we're stuck with the historical term.

    Unfortunately, UFO nuts tend to ignore the most important of the three words: UNIDENTIFIED.
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    On your previous video, the possibility of a mirage or illusion of some sort, or atmospheric conditions. Otherwise, its a UFO.
    I agree, it is a UFO.
    It's a UFO...what different people speculate on, including mirages, atmospheric conditions, Alien craft, are just that...speculation.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The numbers of UFO videos you have posted, the numbers of ghost stories, the numbers of supposed Bigfoot envounters would most certainly qualify as long winded.
    Otherwise I have not seen anyone deny that it was a UFO.
    In actual fact, the lady doing the most objection appears to be you.
  10. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    1. a mysterious object seen in the sky for which, it is claimed, no orthodox scientific explanation can be found

      synonyms: flying saucer, alien spacecraft/spaceship, unidentified flying object

      "the Phoenix police received sixteen calls about the sighting of a UFO last night" ufo&oq=define ufo&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0l5.3658j0j8

    "Abbreviation for "Unidentified Flying Object". The USAF defines a UFO as: Anything that relates to any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be identified as a familiar object. (USAF Regulation 200-2)"
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2016
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    1. Yep, a UFO.
    2. Synonymous of course meaning closely associated with or suggestive of something. With our gullible friends, assume 0f Alien origin, but in realty still a UFO.

    Perhaps if the powers that be, decide to waste their time scientifically investigating some of those sightings, more mundane reasonable explanations may be forthcoming, other than any extraordinary claims that they were extraterrestrial in origin.
  12. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    1. A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language.
  13. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Common how? I don't remember you ever mentioning it before.
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    if one person, thing, or idea is synonymous with another, there is an extremely close connection between them, so that you cannot think of one without also thinking of the other

    Naturally the gullible few amongst us, will automatically assume UFO means Aliens, despite the original meaning and coining of the acronym.
  15. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    From that same page:

    LINGUISTICS if two words are synonymous, they have the same meaning or almost the same meaning
  16. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Why would my mentioning it or not mentioning it have anything to do with it being common?
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    The word UFO is an abbreviation which comes from the initial letters of the words ‘unidentified flying object’. A UFO is a mysterious object in the sky which can’t be explained by current scientific theories. UFOs are often associated with extraterrestrial beings: they’re believed to be the spaceships of the ‘little green men’ of science-fiction movies and stories.

    According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term ‘unidentified flying object’ goes back at least to the 1950s: it is recorded in 1953, in a book by the US aviator and writer Donald Keyhoe. TheOED also gives a citation in 1956 by Edward Ruppelt, an officer in the USAF, stating that he’d invented the term as a more general one to replace the earlier description for such objects, flying saucer.

    Strange objects in the sky were first named flying saucers in the 1940s: the first OED citation is from The Times, in 1947. They were so called because of an account by a US pilot, Kenneth Arnold, who stated in various newspaper and radio interviews of that year that he’d seen ‘saucer-like’ objects in the sky while he was flying past Mount Rainier. The media seemed to have quickly changed this to the snappier ‘flying saucer’ and so the term was born. By the time Ruppelt and his USAF colleagues were investigating reports of these sightings in the 1950s, it was clear that ‘saucer’ was too limited a description, since the objects in question were said to be of many different shapes: hence Ruppelt’s invention of ‘UFO’.

    UFOs captured the public’s imagination and it wasn’t long before sightings were reported from all over the world. The study of UFOs became known as ufology (recorded in The Times Literary Supplement in 1959) and experts in the field were named ufologists about four years later, even though research in this area isn’t generally regarded as an academic discipline.

    The highlighted part is what I mean by gullibility.
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Yes, as seen by the gullible few who I have mentioned.
    In reality though a UFO is a UFO...Unidentified Flying Object, and I accept that literal meaning of the phrase.
    What you chose to imagine a UFO to be, is your problem.
  19. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    List of reported UFO sightings:
  20. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    LOL, seriously? How about the fact that you constantly post so-called "compelling" anecdotes, YouTube videos and blurry photos of otherworldly craft, yet for some reason up until now seem to have failed to mention this apparently "common" aspect of them?
  21. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    LOL! Why would me not mentioning every common aspect of ufos mean there are no common aspects? Do I have to tell you everything we know about ufos? have to do your own research if you are to gain any credibility on this subject.
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    From your link:
    This article lists some alleged sightings of unidentified flying objects

    In other words, the gullibles and Impressionables.
    1. easily persuaded to believe something; credulous.
    1. easily influenced.
      "a girl of eighteen is highly impressionable"
      synonyms:easily influenced, easily led,
  23. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Right. Like my alleged sighting of the moon last night, or my alleged sighting of the Grand Canyon back in 2007. Every sighting of everything is alleged. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.


Share This Page