UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[paddoboy]

I attended the lecture and video presentation by Robert Hastings on the nuclear missile shut-downs by ufos. Very compelling and highly credible evidence.

But certainly not enough to change the accepted scientific verdict of just another garden variety UFO....or unidentified.

Or what else would suffice? Based on what narrow starting premise?
He he he - then go and read my last post again.

More apparent nervous laughter? Why? Your continued suggestions of conspiracy nonsense, supposedly supported by, wait for it! U tube videos, has already been discredited by another, and as we all know, the scientifically arrived at verdict remains as is....a UFO.
What would pass as sufficient evidence? I've mentioned that many times, starting with of course making their visits official. Or if they like they can land in Maroubra Sydney and ask me to take them to our Leader!!!

 

[Q-reeus]

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.

That makes it clear where you fit in as per first and third paras in #2469. Standard committed materialist skeptic. No surprise.

 

[Q-reeus]

Nah, not important to me.

I see. Worth filing away as reference post. So, (repetitious posts demanding 'real evidence') + (Nah, not interested - in defining 'real evidence') = trolling. Got it!

 

[Q-reeus]

But certainly not enough to change the accepted scientific verdict of just another garden variety UFO....or unidentified.

More apparent nervous laughter? Why? Your continued suggestions of conspiracy nonsense, supposedly supported by, wait for it! U tube videos, has already been discredited by another, and as we all know, the scientifically arrived at verdict remains as is....a UFO.
What would pass as sufficient evidence? I've mentioned that many times, starting with of course making their visits official. Or if they like they can land in Maroubra Sydney and ask me to take them to our Leader!!!

I could repeat for you my response to sideshowbob, but it would be too mild an assessment. We've been through it all countless times.

 

[sideshowbob]

That makes it clear where you fit in as per first and third paras in #2469. Standard committed materialist skeptic. No surprise.

Instead of trying to figure out where I fit into your puzzle, why don't you just answer the questions honestly?

 

[Q-reeus]

Instead of trying to figure out where I fit into your puzzle, why don't you just answer the questions honestly?

I have. If you can't see it or won't recognize my position there, nothing further to discuss.

 

[paddoboy]

I could repeat for you my response to sideshowbob, but it would be too mild an assessment. We've been through it all countless times.

And yet you still ignore the fact that all we have is a UFO as scientifically designated and in the absence of convincing evidence, in place of your U tube videos and conspiracy claims..

 

[paddoboy]

. So, (repetitious posts demanding 'real evidence') + (Nah, not interested - in defining 'real evidence') = trolling. Got it!

But you havn't got any real evidence! And you chose to ignore what I am continually listing as evidence...quite convenient for your mind set.

 

[paddoboy]

That makes it clear where you fit in as per first and third paras in #2469. Standard committed materialist skeptic. No surprise.

Ahhh wait!!! You did give an answer...referral back to some U tube videos and the usual conspiracy excuses.

 

[Q-reeus]

But you havn't got any real evidence! And you chose to ignore what I am continually listing as evidence...quite convenient for your mind set.

Sigh. Maroubra beach landing, right in front of paddoboy's house. It may not happen. In fact it will never happen. So that would prove 'they' aren't real. Sure. Stick with that pov. It's safe after all.

 

[paddoboy]

Sigh. Maroubra beach landing, right in front of paddoboy's house. It may not happen. In fact it will never happen. So that would prove 'they' aren't real. Sure. Stick with that pov. It's safe after all.

You are now going from the sublime to the ridiculous q-reeus. Or perhaps my fault, I should have added a smiley. But hey, I'll bite again....If Earth has been visited by alien controlled craft for so long now, why all the flittering in and flittering out? They have nothing to be afraid of nor would really want for anything, for obvious reasons. So why don't they make their visitations official? But just checking, that is what I said. So why are you deliberately misquoting or selective quoting q-reeus?

What would pass as sufficient evidence? I've mentioned that many times, starting with of course making their visits official. Or if they like they can land in Maroubra Sydney and ask me to take them to our Leader!!!

Is it that difficult to admit that you and MR and dmoe are just plain wrong?
Is it that difficult to admit that, yes, speaking scientifically, and due to the lack of real evidence, the best decision to arrive at, is that it is just a UFO and unidentified. Garden variety if you like, but a UFO, with emphasis on U and unidentified. NB: another little joke there with regard to "garden variety"q-reeus.

 

[Q-reeus]

You are now going from the sublime to the ridiculous q-reeus. Or perhaps my fault, I should have added a smiley. But hey, I'll bite again....If Earth has been visited by alien controlled craft for so long now, why all the flittering in and flittering out? They have nothing to be afraid of nor would really want for anything, for obvious reasons. So why don't they make their visitations official? But just checking, that is what I said. So why are you deliberately misquoting or selective quoting q-reeus?

Is it that difficult to admit that you and MR and dmoe are just plain wrong?
Is it that difficult to admit that, yes, speaking scientifically, and due to the lack of real evidence, the best decision to arrive at, is that it is just a UFO and unidentified. Garden variety if you like, but a UFO, with emphasis on U and unidentified. NB: another little joke there with regard to "garden variety"q-reeus.

You know what I was getting at. Your insistence on proof of 'genuine UFO's/aliens' requiring direct and open contact for all the world to see. Premise - any 'real' UFO's would be tin cans piloted by interstellar traveling aliens as flesh and blood humanoids. And you know my position, having repeated it many times now. But as a committed materialist you refuse to so much as countenance that imo far more consistent-with-overall-evidence outlook. Well just accept we have fundamentally irreconcilable pov's. But you won't let it rest there. Never have. Too bad.

 

[paddoboy]

You know what I was getting at. Your insistence on proof of 'genuine UFO's/aliens' requiring direct and open contact for all the world to see. .

All I know is you are straddling the fence and seemingly supportive of the UFO crap so far presented. Other extraordinary evidence of course would be a needle from the medical experiments that some of our impressionables claim to be a victim of, alien blood, alien excreta, an alien tea pot [joke there q-reeus] alien space craft part etc, OK?

Premise - any 'real' UFO's would be tin cans piloted by interstellar traveling aliens as flesh and blood humanoids. And you know my position, having repeated it many times now. But as a committed materialist you refuse to so much as countenance that imo far more consistent-with-overall-evidence outlook. Well just accept we have fundamentally irreconcilable pov's. But you won't let it rest there. Never have. Too bad

It's not a point of view as such. It simply is asking for the extraordinary evidence to validate an extraordinary claim, that you seem to be straddling the fence with to assist MR. I accept aliens probably exist somewhere, sometime. I also accept the scientific fact that as yet we have no evidence of life off this Earth, let alone paying us visits from time to time.
Now instead of beating around the bush in your effort not to displease MR, do you accept the scientific fact that all we have is another UFO [garden variety if you like ] Now you can rest easy.

 

[Q-reeus]

All I know is you are straddling the fence and seemingly supportive of the UFO crap so far presented...

You must have some weird definition for 'straddling the fence'. My best estimate (that's all that's honestly possible regarding nature of UFO's) position is quite clear. Again:
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3506955/

Other extraordinary evidence of course would be a needle from the medical experiments that some of our impressionables claim to be a victim of, alien blood, alien excreta, an alien tea pot [joke there q-reeus] alien space craft part etc, OK?

What's new here? Why keep reiterating your narrow committed materialist criteria. Stop boring me with more of the same every time.

...Now instead of beating around the bush in your effort not to displease MR,...

In your mind having common ground with someone you like to bait is 'trying to please'. Nonsense - MR and I have much but not total common ground re nature of UFO's etc., that's it. You, not I, often seek to chum up in order to win over prospective allies, or maintain current ones. I care nothing for such tactics.

...do you accept the scientific fact that all we have is another UFO [garden variety if you like...

'Scientific fact' is a misplaced term here but that is typical of you. We have multi-witnesses plus multi-state-of-the-art military grade surveillance tech corroborative evidence for extraordinary behavior having no conventional explanation. Like no sonic booms for instance!

Oh hang on, getting ahead of myself here. As usual you fail to define which 'another UFO' we are supposed to be discussing. But I'm guessing it's the tic tac tracked by ship and aircraft radar and IR and chased by the Super Hornet pilots of 2004 Nimitz incident. Recall there was actually one or two swarms of them tracked beforehand on thoroughly re-checked for reliability ship's radar. So not just 'the UFO'.

 

[paddoboy]

'Scientific fact' is a misplaced term here but that is typical of you.

Oh hang on, getting ahead of myself here. As usual you fail to define which 'another UFO' we are supposed to be discussing. But I'm guessing it's the tic tac tracked by ship and aircraft radar and IR and chased by the Super Hornet pilots of 2004 Nimitz incident. Recall there was actually one or two swarms of them tracked beforehand on thoroughly re-checked for reliability ship's radar. So not just 'the UFO'.

I understand its hard for someone of your ego to be knocked from pillar to post on this matter.
And I understand even more why you continually fail to answer the question and show me why I am wrong in saying you are not straggling the fence. I'm not checking your link...It is probably a distraction anyway or an example of the fence straddling.
Again, This is nothing more then a UFO....this meaning the current issue under discussion and/or any other sighting that remains undefined...or a UFO, around 5%....That's it matey, that's the scientific conclusion no matter how much you chose to dance around it. Obviously you disagree...out of the closet on another issue!

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I see. Worth filing away as reference post. So, (repetitious posts demanding 'real evidence') + (Nah, not interested - in defining 'real evidence') = trolling. Got it!

The childish fixations on utter rubbish isn't worth my time. Doesn't mean I won't have fun with them, just that I budget my time more intelligently than UFO nuts.

 

[Q-reeus]

I understand its hard for someone of your ego to be knocked from pillar to post on this matter.
And I understand even more why you continually fail to answer the question and show me why I am wrong in saying you are not straggling the fence. I'm not checking your link...It is probably a distraction anyway or an example of the fence straddling.
Again, This is nothing more then a UFO....this meaning the current issue under discussion and/or any other sighting that remains undefined...or a UFO, around 5%....That's it matey, that's the scientific conclusion no matter how much you chose to dance around it. Obviously you disagree...out of the closet on another issue!

Comfort yourself then with that 'I'm terribly scientific' self-image.

 

[Q-reeus]

The childish fixations on utter rubbish isn't worth my time. Doesn't mean I won't have fun with them, just that I budget my time more intelligently than UFO nuts.

A line entirely in keeping with that aloof and disdainful pose avatar.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Recall there was actually one or two swarms of them tracked beforehand on thoroughly re-checked for reliability ship's radar. So not just 'the UFO'.

Yeah, reliable radar - the question is how reliable is reliable?
the Probability of Detection is offset by the resulting increase in the Probability of False Alarms. (Link now dead but originally referenced and discussed here) I.e. ALL radars show false signals at times. And also numerically evaluated here.
As for the persistent and repeated trope that "expert" and "trained" pilots (etc) "can't possibly be wrong/ should always be believed" I'll just quote some old posts from (much) earlier threads:

Having actually been at the side of the guy when a US Navy F-14 pilot misidentified a Russian jet fighter at a range of half a mile in broad daylight please, explain to [me again] what a credible source is?

(Here).

One relatively "famous" viewing (I say relatively because it did the rounds when I was in the Observer Corps and was related to me by the guy on duty in the radar tower at RAF Cottesmore at the time: they were contacted by an incoming RAF flight (trained observers!) to complain about an air-miss (the official terminology when two aircraft are within mid-air collision possibility distance) - the pilot stated, somewhat irately, that ground control hadn't informed him of the C-130 Hercules (40 metres wingspan) at the same altitude within 5 miles and that he'd had to change course to avoid it.
His reputation didn't get enhanced when ground control told him that it was actually a C-5 (68 metres wingspan) at fifteen miles and on a diverging course.

(Here).

Heinkel He 113 in combat.
31 May 1940 - A 213 sqn Hurricane pilot claims to have shot one down.
10 Jun 1940 - A case of mistaken identity ... caused one pilot (of a Spitfire) to dive toward a "friendly" formation of He 113s.
30 Jun 1940 - Air attaché Bern confirms the He 113 is a series production model.
3 Aug 1940 - RAF publication The Aeroplane states that three he 113s "have been shot down over this country in the past week".
23 Jan 1941 - AI (Air Intelligence) produces first summary of He 113 based on all intelligence accumulated. It states that the aircraft can be employed in either a fighter-bomber role or high-speed reconnaissance role. Additionally night-fighting equipment can be added. ... AI believes that the Soviet Union is predominantly producing the He 113, under license.
20 Jun 1941 - Berlin correspondent of Giornale d'Italia reports that the He 113 been "distinguishing itself among German fighters"...
30 Dec 1941 - French intelligence reports that the He 112/113 is being tested as a torpedo bomber and is already employed as a night-fighter over Belgium, Holland, and the Rhineland.
28 Jun 1943 - Lt S. A. Peck of 432 Sqn positively identifies as He 113 fighters that attacked his bomber formation on a raid over St. Nazaire.

And the significance?
The Heinkel He 113 did not exist - it was made up by German intelligence, based on a handful of He 100 aircraft painted in different squadron colours and their photos published in German newspapers.
The aircraft never saw combat, indeed it didn't enter service or production - yet they were reported in droves during the Battle of Britain, and for some time afterwards.
Pilots - reliable eye witnesses?

(Here).

 

[paddoboy]

Comfort yourself then with that 'I'm terribly scientific' self-image.

Whatever floats your boat q-reeus!

Let me sign off now, as I understand how childishly desperate you are becoming in wanting that final say to continue to boost that ego.

This logically and scientifically, is nothing more then a UFO with the emphasis on Unidentified. That's it matey, and nothing you say nor MR, nor any ranting and raving on a forum open to all sorts of Tom's Dick's and Harry's will change that verdict.
Rest easy anyway!