USOs

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

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

    Messages:
    31,637
    Magical Realist:

    You can tell how desperate you are to ignore all counterarguments by the way that you refuse to address any of the substantive objections I have raised, and by your false characterisation of my careful and detailed posts as "long drawn out ranting".

    Clearly, you choose not to respond because you know that any response you make will be weak and inadequate. I have shown you up for what you are. You're not happy at being exposed, but you have no response that will withstand scrutiny. So, you resort to ad hominems and deflection, while ignoring all of the substance of what I wrote. How disappointing.

    Let's face it: you jumped to an unjustified conclusion, and now, following my careful analysis, you're looking a bit silly.

    I'm afraid that trying to bluster your way through this will just look like you continuing to dig a hole for yourself. You'd do better to address what I wrote in an honest manner, rather than this avoidance and insistence that you must be correct just because you say you are.

    How much unevidenced bullshit about cyclindrical "craft" with "pilots" do we have to tolerate, all in the name of a True Believer's faith in the unproven?

    It's merits, as I have established, are few. So far, all we have is a third-hand anecdote and some dubious video of unknown provenance. This is objectively true. Those are the merits.

    I have already addressed this point in detail above. Why don't you respond to what I wrote there?

    You can establish that my speculations are bogus can you? Go on then. I dare you to try.

    I'm not a pseudoskeptic. I'm the real deal. Sorry about that, Magical Realist. It makes things hard for you. I can assure you that calling names won't help you, though. It just makes you look inadequate. You're admitting you have no substance to what you say, so you need to resort to ad hominems.

    I freely admit that. It could be an unknown flying shadow, or an unknown water droplet, for example. You'll agree, of course. Unknown is unknown. Right?

    I challenge you to back up this silly claim of yours. Point out examples of any strawmen I have erected in my "longwinded" posts. Show where I have not been objective.

    If you cannot do this, I hope you will be man enough to apologise for your insulting comments.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,384
    I was hoping for more on unidentified submerged objects - a much larger, better supplied, and more interesting category of things than unidentified flying objects.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Magical Realist, are you so close-minded that you won't even entertain the possibility that it's NOT an otherworldly craft?

    It would be awesome if it was one, but the evidence just isn't extraordinary enough to jump to that conclusion.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    11,680
    I don't know what world it's from. I DO know its one of thousands of sightings and photos of unknown aerial craft that doesn't match any technology we have nor any natural explanation for them. UFOs like this one have been observed for decades now, saucer shaped and cylindrical shaped objects flying at incredible speeds. So since we know such things exist, it becomes quite likely that it is yet another one of those.

    http://www.thinkaboutit-ufos.com/cylinder-shaped-ufos/
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2016
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,680
    This must be James R doin his senior citizen victory lap and high fiv'n skeptics abroad for having put another weak inadequate believer in ufos into their place. Me feels so dirty now. lol! If putting people down and whining about compelling evidence were winning an argument, you'd win the trophy hands down James R. Or maybe second place after Bells. I can't decide who is more obnoxiously bent on being right on a topic they are clearly clueless about.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2016
  9. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    You, obviously.
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,637
    Magical Realist:

    There's not much technology that needs matching if it turns out it's a water droplet or a shadow. If it's a water droplet, I'm guessing it's probably from Earth, at least in the recent past.

    Of course, you don't have a clue how fast this object is flying, even if it is an aircraft. There's no way to tell from the video alone. Again, you make a baseless assumption that it is going at "incredible speed".

    It is a telling fact that the UFO 'phenomenon' increased dramatically after the initial sighting by Kenneth Arnold back in the 1950s. Why do you think that is? Did aliens suddenly become interested in Earth in the 1950s, when they hadn't been interested before? Or did they just happen to arrive on Earth then for the first time? Or could it be that Arnold started a "craze", kinda like hoola hoops or yoyos, that some people just never grew out of? (And, you know, he didn't even describe seeing a "flying saucer".)

    How old are you, Magical Realist? I'm betting I'm probably not a lot older than you. Wiser, certainly, but probably not older.

    You know you keep making yourself look bad with your personal attacks and the fact that you can't address any of the substance, don't you?

    I'm not sure whether this is a pattern on the internet in general, or just with certain posters here, but writing "LOL!" in response to my posts is a dead-set giveaway that the poster in question believes they have lost the argument. It's a kind of nervous twitch, trying to laugh off one's own shame.

    Never mind, Magical Realist. I know I can't win you over. Nobody will. Your faith in the existence of the woo is far too powerful to be diverted by something as trivial as rational argument.

    But who knows? The spectacle you make of yourself in threads like this one may give other readers pause for thought.

    ---
    By the way, don't think that it has gone unnoticed that you have again failed to support any of your claims or to rise to the challenges you set for yourself.
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,637
    Magical Realist:

    I've given this some thought. Look, it's clear that you just want to believe in this nonsense and you aren't interested in examining any of it to see if it's real.

    I'm going to stop directly interacting with you because it is a fruitless exercise. It makes you feel uncomfortable and persecuted, and it makes me frustrated that you refuse to turn your brain on. And afterwards I feel bad for walking all over you demolishing your position while you have no real reply.

    From now on, I'll probably just comment occasionally to debunk nonsense that you post that captures my interest. But unless and until you show an interest in actually examining the stuff you're putting up, I'm not going to be directly engaging you any more. I know your faith is important to you and I don't want to shake that until you're ready to actually test it.

    Let me know if you ever want to have a real debate about this stuff, ok?
     
  12. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,680
    The theory behind the appearance of ufos in the mid 1940's is that they (whoever they are) suddenly became interested in humanity after the explosion of the atomic bombs in Japan. The implication is that they recognized we were at a stage where we could destroy outselves and therefore in need of some sort of interaction. Interesting also is the tendency of ufos sighting to come in waves--like the one in the 1970's where thousands were observed and even interacted with. That's further evidence for the reality of this phenomenon. People all over the world don't suddenly agree to start making up ufo sightings in the same year.
     
  13. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,680
    This will be better for your blood pressure in the long run. Letting go is so important for us in our later years. The body can't handle the undue stress of encountering startling evidence for things it doesn't want to believe in. It's immunity is reduced and you end up making yourself sick or mentally disturbed. I often forget the traumatizing effect of ufo and paranormal evidence on people not mentally equipped to face the reality of their existence. I'll go easy on you next time and try to agree with everything you say. I'll bow reverently before your claims of superior intelligence and vast knowledge on the subject of ufos and the paranormal. That should make you feel better no?
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2016
  14. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,680
    Interview: UFO/USO Researcher Jennifer Jarvis of Lake Ontario 'Orbwatch'

    q.1 -- "Throughout UFO/USO History, there have been murmurs of undersea alien bases of operation. Do you think such a thing exists or has ever existed?

    JJ -- I do not use the word "alien" in my own reports. The word does appear occasionally on our website, but only in documents authored by other people. Judging only from what I have witnessed personally, there could be some truth to the concept of "undersea/underwater" bases of operation. However, whether or not one can determine the origins of these so-called bases is another matter.

    My personal observations have all been associated with water. Obviously, I am mostly observing on Lake Ontario, but have seen the "ORBS" in other places too.

    I went to Australia in April 1998 and witnessed ORB-like activity out over the Gulf of St. Vincent near Adelaide. I am told by OW Co-Director that there are no shore lights even slightly resembling what we saw over the Gulf from Adelaide. On the other side of the Gulf there is a very sparse population. There are about 6 towns down that side of the Gulf, spread along about 250 km of roads. Apperently, none of these little settlements would be capable of producing what we saw. Shipping and roads may also be ruled out.

    In England I saw similar activity right over the River Thames in Bershire, west of London. I had been given information regarding a multi-lighted craft that had been witnessed one week before my initial skywatch. I set up base camp to keep a watch for any repeat performance of this colorful event, and, as a result, was witness to three consecutive nights of ORB-like activity right over the river.

    On the east coast of England, just north of the Thames Estuary, I saw more ORB activity. These "lights" would hover just like the ORBS that I see over Lake Ontario. However, I saw no submersions.

    Whilst staying in Torquay, Devon, I witnessed an ORB rising up over the river to the north of our observation location. The light quality was very similar to the ORBS that I see over the lake.

    The only conclusion that I can really draw from my own observations is that I, personally, see aerial phenomena in association with water. However, in the case of Lake Ontario, I would hazard a guess that there is definitely "something" down there under that dark, cold water!!!....."


    (c)1999 Jennifer Jarvis (ORBWATCH) -- contact@orbwatch.com

    (c)Interviewed by M.Q. Osiris, summer 1999 -- protoalien@netscape.net

    http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1714.htm
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2016
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,637
    Magical Realist:

    This is an ad hoc "explanation" that has a whole lot of unjustified assumptions and no evidence to back it up.

    Hula hoop crazes never happen either. Why would a whole bunch of people suddenly decide that hula is the thing to do? Such a thing is impossible.

    Maybe.

    Are you planning to let the woo go?

    I can see how it could hypthetically be traumatizing, if there was any evidence.

    Yes. Thanks, Magical Realist! That will do nicely. Run along now.
     
  16. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,680
    Well yes..for a toy that was disseminated worldwide in stores and advertised widely on TV. But there was no such coordinated campaign for ufo flaps such as the one that occurred in October of 1973. People just started seeing the same sort of thing worldwide. No coordination or encouragement to do so:

    http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc945.htm

    http://kenny.anomalyresponse.org/WAVE73.htm
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2016
  17. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,680
    "For over fifty years, both civilian and military pilots have seen Unidentified Aerial Phenomena1 (UAP), also commonly called Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs). This catalogue is a compilation of more than 1300+ such sightings, by military pilots, private pilots and airliners crews. These cases are special for several reasons. Training and experience make pilots and crews much more reliable witnesses than others. They are used to unusual meteorological phenomena. They have the added advantage of being able to approach the phenomenon. Sometimes they can even overfly the object, observing it between themselves and the earth below. Military pilots are trained to estimate distances, shapes and speed of flying machines. Sometimes, pilots’ sightings are confirmed by radar detection, observers on the ground (control tower personnel, Ground Observer Corps, civilians,..) or other pilots in flight. In some cases electro-magnetic effects were noted (radios, radar, compasses, engines, ...). In a few rare cases the pilot or crew felt physical effects like heat, or blinding light. This catalog contains 1305 cases: 606 Military aircraft cases, 444 Airliners cases, 193 private light planes (19 multiple aircraft, 43 cases with no mention of type of aircraft). Among the 1305 cases, 702 are North American...."=====http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/WeinsteinPilotCatalog.pdf
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2016
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,743
    So, viral memes are a recent invention?

    No "Have a Nice Day" smilies?
    No "Kilroy was here"?
    No girls speaking in tongues like witches?
     
  19. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,680
    Spread thru media and marketing or local hysteria. Has nothing to do with nationwide ufo flaps.
     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,743
    All pre-1973. Some, very much so.

    In other words, they had less media support than the UFO stuff.
     
  21. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,680
    No...there was TV, stickers with smilie faces, magazines, and radio. All cultural memes that were spread over years. And the witch thing, like I said, was a local hysteria confined to a village and so transmitted thru gossip. Nothing remotely like a ufo flap where people living in different areas actually witness phenomena with their own eyes in the same month. People don't see ufos just because other people see ufos.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2016
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,743
    Yes, that's exactly what it's like.

    Well, says you.

    That's circular logic there.
     
  23. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,379
    Do you believe in witches, MR?
    How do you explain the witch-hunts during European and American history, notions of sorcery, of witchcraft?
    Do you believe in the existence of witches?
    How do you otherwise explain the consistent claims of many people, in different areas, witnessing the same phenomena in the same month?
    Witches must have existed, right?
     

Share This Page