UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

paddoboy said:
As I said, that's what common sense dictates.
Click to expand...
The problem with 'common sense' is that anyone can use it.
Even a hermit in a cave can take a poll of everyone he knows, and come up with his own idea of 'common'.
I'll hazard that MR thinks his sense is common.
 
Just because it can't be identified as a mundane object doesn't mean it is not a mundane object.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. Because the instant you say it is or could be a mundane object, you have identified it, and it is no longer a UFO. A UFO inherently excludes being a mundane object because it is unidentifiable as such.

Here's a list of UFOs thruout history. Tell me which of these are mundane objects:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings
 
Magical Realist said:
Yes it does. Because the instant you say it is or could be a mundane object, you have identified it, and it is no longer a UFO. A UFO inherently excludes being a mundane object because it is unidentifiable as such.
Click to expand...
Nonsense again. A UFO remains a UFO [UNIDENTIFIED] until it becomes identified. And if it remains a UFO, it logically remains as unidentified, certainly not any reason to automatically extrapolate that to of alien origin just to support or give comfort to some UFO woo woo enthusiast.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
No, you prove they're filled with little green men.
Click to expand...
Once it's clear that absurdly narrow demand is repeated ad nauseum as a mantra, despite repeated statements they are (with just maybe rare exceptions) very probably something entirely different in nature to tin cans piloted by flesh-and-blood humanoids, useful, honest dialog is rendered impossible. No amount of evidence will ever suffice. Ever.

But suppose a committed skeptic was hypothetically somehow granted direct party to an exclusive inner-circle face-to-face encounter with honest to goodness real 'little green men'. Granted a tour of their spaceship, and taken for a ride and back to and from the interstellar HQ of said 'little green men'. What then? Said skeptic now becomes a true believer. BUT, former buddy fellow skeptics would then turn on him/her. Pouring scorn on the poor sap as having lost his/her marbles. 'We only have your word for it - show us the proof'.

The mass of '5%-10% unexplained' reports convinces me such UFO incidents are mostly real and logically consistent with 'projections/manifestations' of higher intelligences having whimsical or mischievous motivations. With no intention of ever directly engaging mere humans. But that option is never allowed by the hardened materialist skeptics. 'Show us the little green men'! SHOW US!!

For those with less qualms about being stigmatized as 'gullible', fanatic', 'weirdo', 'UFO nut' etc. etc., the now huge database of accumulated reports from highly responsible witnesses easily outweighs the intended shaming and silencing (or just bating as sport) owing to such crude attacks. A few repeats from slightly different angles, dealing with one or two notable incidents:

Very many more reports re incursions at many other high security military sites is there for the digging. Again - the bind for skeptics also invariably 'conspiracy theory' scoffers is obvious. If one wishes to argue all such witnesses are practiced liars but just as individuals and not part of a pervasive and persistent black psyop government/government-agency disinfo program (CONSPIRACY!!), there is a big problem. Please cite even a single instance of contemporaries at these 'alleged' UFO incursion sites, stepping forward to denounce their then compatriots/fellow officers etc., as frauds.
PS: The well meant interpretations by witnesses of what such incursions are 'all about' - supposedly 'warnings of the dire consequences of nuclear arms races', is imo wrong for reasons given above. Being mistaken on that interpretative angle has no bearing on truth of their accounts as to what actually transpired.
 
Last edited:
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Still waiting for real evidence.
Click to expand...
Define precisely what would pass as conclusive 'real evidence'. DNA from obliging 'little green men' lying on examination table with world's media all present, extracted and analyzed live by an accredited international team of experts? Landed spaceship obligingly opened for inspection to another international team of accredited alien tech experts?
Or what else would suffice? Based on what narrow starting premise?
He he he - then go and read my last post again.
 
The Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967[1], article by Ryan Dube.
The Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident – Part II[2], article by Ryan Dube.
The Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident – Part III[3], article by Ryan Dube.
An Interview With Malmstrom AFB Witness Eric Carlson[4], article and interview by Ryan Dube.
The Echo Flight UFO Debate Continues[5], article by Ryan Dube.
The James Carlson Malmstrom Problem[6], article by Ryan Dube.
Did UFOs Disable Minuteman Missiles at Malmstrom AFB in 1967?[7], article by Ryan Dube.
Case Closed? A Re-Evaluation of the Echo Flight Incident[8], article by Stephen Broadbent.
Did UFOs Disable Minuteman Missiles at Malmstrom AFB in 1967?[9], article by Tim Hebert.
Off Alert, Echo Flight, 0845: A Reconstruction...Part 1[10], article by Tim Hebert.
Off Alert, Echo Flight: The "UFO" Encounter...Part 2[11], article by Tim Hebert.
Walter Figel: No UFOs at Echo and Doubtful of Shutdowns at Oscar[12], article by Tim Hebert.
Robert Hastings: "James Carlson Just Can't Get It"...Again?[13], article by Tim Hebert.
Robert Hastings' Swiss Cheese Factor...Henry Barlow[14], article by Tim Hebert.
Two Alternative UFO Theories For Echo Flight[15], article by Tim Hebert.
An Important Echo Flight Factor: The SIN Line[16], article by Tim Hebert.
The Erosion of Echo's UFO Corner Stone[17], article by Tim Hebert.
Case Closed! A Re-Evaluation of the Echo Flight Incident[18], article by Tim Hebert.
Echo Flight: The Makings of a UFO Myth[19], article by Tim Hebert.
Former Air Force Member Chimes In...Jamison, UFOs and EMPs[24], article by Tim Hebert.
Oscar and Echo Flights: Wikipedia's UFO Conundrum[26], article by Tim Hebert.
Wikipedia Oscar Flight UFO Update[27], article by Tim Hebert.
Robert Hastings Double Downs on Echo and Oscar Flights[30], article by Tim Hebert.
Engineering Change Proposal 1221: The Air Force's Success Against UFO Attacks[32], article by Tim Hebert.
Flat Earth Nukes[33], article by David Clarke.
There are proven lies on one side, and the truth on the other. When someone publishes an account of an incident that says "source A confirms that situation B existed, and event C occurred" and source A come back and says "I never said anything of the sort, and these people have lied outright in regard to my testimony," there can be no real dispute.
Click to expand...
All from here.
 
Third last line in my #2469 has prompted quite a response. After getting through much of the 2nd linked article in that 'Warning, warning' bannered Wki article cited in above post, click click click got me to this page:
https://www.ufohastings.com/articles/telephonic-interviews-with-colonel-walter-figel-usaf-ret
Therein are three audio recordings of interviews by Robert Hastings (pro UFO incursion happened at Malmstrom 1967) with Colonel Walter Figel, who was present along with Silas on the occasion of the ICBM shutdowns there and then.
Clearly there has been another contemporary of Robert Silas - Captain Eric Carlson (and latterly his son), who has been a trenchant critic of Silas and some others present then, and has indeed accused them of lying and making up the UFO incursion claims. Well, it's murky but those audio recordings in turn discredit at least one key aspect of Carlson's claims. That eyewitness(s) to UFO presence were joking not serious. Despite evidently reproduced email responses from the same Figel later disowning any UFO incident being reported to him! Pressure, or what? Who really knows.

Above linked to site lists many other incidents at many nuke facilities. Happy reading if you want to pursue 'the wider picture' there in detail.
 
Last edited:
Q-reeus said:
Define precisely what would pass as conclusive 'real evidence'. DNA from obliging 'little green men' lying on examination table with world's media all present, extracted and analyzed live by an accredited international team of experts? Landed spaceship obligingly opened for inspection to another international team of accredited alien tech experts?
Or what else would suffice? Based on what narrow starting premise?
He he he - then go and read my last post again.
Click to expand...
We could start by not using the same old discredited shit over and over again. Unless the person wants to look stupid, of course. Free country.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
We could start by not using the same old discredited shit over and over again. Unless the person wants to look stupid, of course. Free country.
Click to expand...
I was admittedly totally unaware of the contention surrounding the 'Echo' and 'Oscar' Malmstrom events or alleged events. So maybe Silas is an outright liar as charged, or simply was confused and sloppy in recalling the timelines and details as Hastings has maintained. To believe that the first option just repeats with minor variants for the many other incidents reported by many other personnel at many other sites is silly. Those audio interviews I linked a page to, are worth listening to if one wants 'balance'.
But I digress - you have not answered my question. What is your criteria for 'conclusive real evidence'? Based on what narrow starting premise?
 
Last edited:
Q-reeus said:
Once it's clear that absurdly narrow demand is repeated ad nauseum as a mantra, despite repeated statements they are (with just maybe rare exceptions) very probably something entirely different in nature to tin cans piloted by flesh-and-blood humanoids, useful, honest dialog is rendered impossible. No amount of evidence will ever suffice. Ever.

But suppose a committed skeptic was hypothetically somehow granted direct party to an exclusive inner-circle face-to-face encounter with honest to goodness real 'little green men'. Granted a tour of their spaceship, and taken for a ride and back to and from the interstellar HQ of said 'little green men'. What then? Said skeptic now becomes a true believer. BUT, former buddy fellow skeptics would then turn on him/her. Pouring scorn on the poor sap as having lost his/her marbles. 'We only have your word for it - show us the proof'.

The mass of '5%-10% unexplained' reports convinces me such UFO incidents are mostly real and logically consistent with 'projections/manifestations' of higher intelligences having whimsical or mischievous motivations. With no intention of ever directly engaging mere humans. But that option is never allowed by the hardened materialist skeptics. 'Show us the little green men'! SHOW US!!

For those with less qualms about being stigmatized as 'gullible', fanatic', 'weirdo', 'UFO nut' etc. etc., the now huge database of accumulated reports from highly responsible witnesses easily outweighs the intended shaming and silencing (or just bating as sport) owing to such crude attacks. A few repeats from slightly different angles, dealing with one or two notable incidents:

Very many more reports re incursions at many other high security military sites is there for the digging. Again - the bind for skeptics also invariably 'conspiracy theory' scoffers is obvious. If one wishes to argue all such witnesses are practiced liars but just as individuals and not part of a pervasive and persistent black psyop government/government-agency disinfo program (CONSPIRACY!!), there is a big problem. Please cite even a single instance of contemporaries at these 'alleged' UFO incursion sites, stepping forward to denounce their then compatriots/fellow officers etc., as frauds.
PS: The well meant interpretations by witnesses of what such incursions are 'all about' - supposedly 'warnings of the dire consequences of nuclear arms races', is imo wrong for reasons given above. Being mistaken on that interpretative angle has no bearing on truth of their accounts as to what actually transpired.
Click to expand...

I attended the lecture and video presentation by Robert Hastings on the nuclear missile shut-downs by ufos. Very compelling and highly credible evidence.
 
Last edited:
Q-reeus said:
Define precisely what would pass as conclusive 'real evidence'.
Click to expand...
You start. Define precisely what what would pass as conclusive 'real evidence' for you at a crime scene. Would you make outlandish demands like fingerprints? Footprints? DNA? Fibers? (Because we know that criminals are likely to leave such things behind.)

Step Two: Explain why we would expect less evidence for entities that we don't even know exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top