USOs

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

  1. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,625
    Religion is the culprit here and the spread of a hysterical mindset in local villages over what was causing crop failures, plagues, etc. With ufos there is no underlying hysteria. People not connected in the least all seeing the same things over a period of a month. There is not even a likelihood they heard of the other accounts. UFO sightings don't usually make national headlines.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    31,445
    He probably does believe in witches. I'd be surprised if he didn't.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    11,625
    The irresistable ad hom from another self-avowed ignorer.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,212
    Since ad homs are de rigueur in this subforum, I'm afraid accusing someone of it has a critical clout approaching zero.
     
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,625
    Typical Dave defense of insults and ad homs. Well we know where you stand...
     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,212
    I am not defending.
    You are a pot calling a kettle black. You have no business complaining about ad homs.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The irresistable grasping of straws from another self avowed impressionable.
     
  11. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,625
    LOL! Thank you Mother Superior.

    Ad homing is either right or wrong. There are no exceptions for different people. Unless ofcourse they're part of your little "bash MR" buddy club, right? Remember you defending Kittamaru calling me a psychopath? This is standard bullshit from you.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2016
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,212
    And which is it to you?

    You engage in it constantly, then try to call others out on it. That's hypocrisy.

    You are not being bashed because of who you are, you are being bashed because of the arguments you assert. Nobody cares who you are, they only care what you say.

    You lack critical thinking and healthy skepticism. Once you'd freely admitted that you will believe anything any stranger tells you unless you have good reason to be suspicious of them, there was just no way back from that. It undermines every thread, every post you write. How is anyone supposed to trust you? For all we know, the sentences you write were put in your ear by a Nigerian Prince. Many of the things you have asserted over multiple threads seem to be just that.

    That's a very relevant concern in a discussion. Nobody started off wanting to dismiss you; you left them no choice.

    JamesR has been by far the most tolerant, and yet you managed to get under even his skin with your poor critical thinking.

    But have it your way "we're all out to get you".

    Now please, respond with your worst put-down.
     
    Daecon likes this.
  13. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,625
    Bullshit it is. Every time one of you 5 trolls loses an argument with me you get into moralizing put-downs about who I am as a person. It has not a thing to do with the debate, but that's always where you take it--to personal levels. You're whole attack on me for ad homing, which I assume you scrupulously catalogue to the neglect of everyone else, is itself another attack on me. Now I'm untrustworthy and a mouthpiece for a Nigerian prince. Look, if you can't win an argument, then quit arguing. Ad homing and talking about how I am or how I'm not reasoning properly is only a distraction from the real issue. You don't have a thing to teach me about critical thinking when all you do is make up excuses to deny evidence put right in front of you.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2016
  14. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    We're not denying evidence, we're denying the idiotic conclusions that you're jumping to after carefully not considering any other possible alternative to "ALIENS!!!" "GHOSTS!!!" "BIGFOOT!!!"
     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,212
    I wonder what that'll be like...

    No. Only the part you present.

    I wonder what that'll be like...


    We all noticed you studiously avoided addressing the core problem:
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    If you're not going to properly address the quite reasonable objections that have been put against your claims, then you can't win the argument. You should therefore take your own advice.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    MR:

    If it turns out that you are interested in discussing your claims, you might start addressing the substance of my posts here (and honestly answering the questions I have put to you in these posts, in full):

    http://sciforums.com/threads/usos.156774/page-2#post-3391003
    http://sciforums.com/threads/usos.156774/page-2#post-3391004
    http://sciforums.com/threads/usos.156774/page-3#post-3391024
    http://sciforums.com/threads/usos.156774/page-3#post-3391025
    http://sciforums.com/threads/usos.156774/page-4#post-3391203

    For example, I proposed that the video you posted might show a water droplet on the aircraft canopy. Your entire response to that suggestion was this:
    This is not a discussion of what I wrote. It does nothing to dispute what I wrote. It is you ignoring the substance of what I wrote. It shows an inability or unwillingness to honestly face objections to your ideas.
     
  18. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,625
    A water droplet is not black and cylindrical shaped. Everyone who has ever seen a water droplet on a windshield knows this. Quit trying to rewrite the science books just to deny the evidence that is right in front of you.
     
  19. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,625
    You have yet to offer anything. Anytime I ask you what you are claiming, you say you aren't claiming anything, Just suggesting possibilities. Come back when you have a strong enough claim to argue for. Cuz as of this post, you haven't argued anything worth taking seriously.
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    Magical Realist:

    Come back when you have a strong enough claim to argue for. And when you do, make sure you're equipped with evidence to argue the claim, rather than just your wish that it be true.

    Oh, and don't think it has gone unnoticed that you have continued to avoid responding to the substance of what I posted.
     
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,212
    This is flawed logic. Unlike your stance, skeptics are not set on stating what it is, merely on what it might be (since we know we can't know). So it makes no sense to dismiss a plausible explanation simply because it doesn't demand itself to be true. Being open makes for a stronger stance.

    So while the rest of the world sees being open to multiple plausibilities as a good thing, you see it as a bad thing.

    I post this, not for your benefit, but for the benefit of other readers. They are learning from your errors.
     
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,212
    JamesR: The water droplet would have been an excellent explanation of the object and its movement, but I think it rendered implausible by careful observation.

    Watch the objects' position relative to the cockpit console:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    At 0:20s to 0:22s you can see the object move dramatically to the left relative to the cockpit console - and therefore relative to the aircraft's canopy.

    (It's not due to a shifting camera - the camera has not moved relative to the cockpit in that time.)

    If it were a droplet on the canopy, and were shifted sideways, it should have changed its long-axis orientation and - presumably moved backward.

     
  23. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,625
    It makes sense to dismiss mere possibilities with no evidence of their probability. A mere possibility isn't an argument for anything. Just idle and inconsequential speculations. If you have nothing more substantial that that, then maybe you should butt out.

    Actually the rest of the world sees a cylindrical object flying in sky. Nobody is seeing a shadow or a water droplet except James R. He sees what he wants to see.
     

Share This Page