Best ufo photos ever taken

[Baldeee]

Ask James R. He's the one complaining about me not admitting photoshop until I had good evidence for it. Like when you swooped in to defend one troll for calling me a psychopath, again you swoop in to defend the complainer and then complain about me taking offense to it. Methinks the ladies doth complain too much.

The issue seems to be that, in this particular instance, you seemed more likely to accept that it was a genuine UFO than accept that it was more likely to be a faked photo.
Given that faking a photo is relatively common (even retouching is a form of fakery) and there is no solid evidence of UFOs other than anecdotal evidence, it is legitimately asked why you would favour it in the first instance being a UFO rather than simply a faked photo?
Even ignoring the simple possibility of a faked photo, you subsequently still preferred the notion of it being a genuine UFO rather than the possibility of it being a photo created on an identified app specifically created for such fakery, even when provided similar photos that were known to be fakes created by that app purporting to show the same "UFO".
It is your apparent eagerness to assume a genuine UFO, and your reluctance to be as eager to assume a far more likely explanation when presented, that seems to cause people to question your thinking.

Would you not agree?

 

[Magical Realist]

Given that faking a photo is relatively common (even retouching is a form of fakery) and there is no solid evidence of UFOs other than anecdotal evidence, it is legitimately asked why you would favour it in the first instance being a UFO rather than simply a faked photo?

Because as you can see from this impressive archive of ufo photos, anecdotal evidence is not the only evidence we have for ufos:

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/viewpage/newer/0.htm

Even ignoring the simple possibility of a faked photo, you subsequently still preferred the \notion of it being a genuine UFO rather than the possibility of it being a photo created on an identified app specifically created for such fakery, even when provided similar photos that were known to be fakes created by that app purporting to show the same "UFO".

Yes..until I saw the similarity between the ufo photo and the app photos, I maintained the authenticity of the ufo. Then upon further examination I agreed. They are the same. I should be commended for that, not bitched out for not concluding it sooner. Don't you agree?

 

[sideshowbob]

..until I saw the similarity between the ufo photo and the app photos, I maintained the authenticity of the ufo. Then upon further examination I agreed. They are the same. I should be commended for that, not bitched out for not concluding it sooner. Don't you agree?

Yes. It is better to eventually be right than to cling to being wrong.

And if we recognize that we can be wrong, we should be quicker to admit it in future.

 

[Magical Realist]

Yes. It is better to eventually be right than to cling to being wrong.

And if we recognize that we can be wrong, we should be quicker to admit it in future.

The problem lies in being right as well and seeing that many ufos are in fact real. Hence the openness to the possibility of their reality.

 

[sideshowbob]

The problem lies in being right as well and seeing that many ufos are in fact real. Hence the openness to the possibility of their reality.

I am open to their reality. For the present, the reality is that most of the evidence is flimsy or faked. And what isn't flimsy or faked is unknown.

 

[Magical Realist]

I am open to their reality. For the present, the reality is that most of the evidence is flimsy or faked. And what isn't flimsy or faked is unknown.

Thousands of eyewitness accounts of craft landing in fields, leaving charred vegetation and often strange residues, as well as thousands of pilot sightings, many with radar confirmation, along with thousands of photos, are compelling evidence that the ufo phenomenon is real. There are intelligently piloted craft in our atmosphere that exceed our technology and have been witnessed for hundreds of years. There are also aerial plasma forms that may be generated by telluric electromagnetic fields.

http://www.nicap.org/special.htm

 

[sideshowbob]

Thousands of eyewitness accounts of craft landing in fields, leaving charred vegetation and often strange residues, as well as thousands of pilot sightings, many with radar confirmation, along with thousands of photos, are compelling evidence that the ufo phenomenon is real.

You're not listening. I have never disputed the fact that the ufo phenomenon is real.

There are intelligently piloted craft in our atmosphere that exceed our technology....

THAT is what I am disputing. The conclusion DOES NOT FOLLOW from the observation.

 

[Kittamaru]

ufos could be unpiloted drones... or even self aware machines... hell, could even be organic for all we know

 

[James R]

Magical Realist:

Ask James R. He's the one complaining about me not admitting photoshop until I had good evidence for it.

My complaint is that you jumped to the conclusion that you had a genuine photo of an alien spaceship without bothering to do any checking at all as to whether there was good evidence for that conclusion.

Moreover, when I sensibly pointed out that the photo was clearly digitally manipulated, you continued to insist that, no, it was still a genuine alien spaceship photograph.

Then, when Baldee told you there was an app that created exactly the same spaceship image, you still insisted that the photo was legitimate for a while.

It was only eventually, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that you tried to save face by admitting your initial error.

To re-iterate, my complaint with you, such as it is, is that you assume that every photo shows a paranormal phenomenon of some kind, unless it is conclusive proven otherwise. Your default position is to start with a fantasy rather than starting from reality. And worse - you seem to have the capacity for rational thought, yet you refuse to engage your brain when it comes to the paranormal.

Thousands of eyewitness accounts of craft landing in fields, leaving charred vegetation and often strange residues, as well as thousands of pilot sightings, many with radar confirmation, along with thousands of photos, are compelling evidence that the ufo phenomenon is real.

The questions you should be asking are ones like the following:

• Are those thousands of eyewitnesses all reliable?
• Could anything other than an alien craft possible char vegetation, or produce an appearance of charring?
• Are those strange residues really as strange as you believe they are?
• Is there good evidence that those thousands of pilots saw alien spaceships, or did they see something else?
• Is every unidentified radar blip an alien spaceship, or can other things cause blips on the radar?
• Can photos be faked? (You know of at least one clear example of fakery from this thread. Try applying this new-found knowledge to other cases.)

There are intelligently piloted craft in our atmosphere that exceed our technology and have been witnessed for hundreds of years.

Unlikely. Besides, there's no good evidence for that conclusion.

There are also aerial plasma forms that may be generated by telluric electromagnetic fields.

You don't know what the term "telluric electromagnetic field" means, do you? But hey, it sounds kinda scientific and all, and it supports the fantasy, so what the heck, eh?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Unlikely. Besides, there's no good evidence for that conclusion.

Sure there is. It doesn't rise to the level of hard scientific evidence but that isn't the only criteria by which one can logically judge [ a good thing or we couldn't have law and courts.] In fact, the COMETA report concluded that these may well be crafts from another civilization. I believe the language was that the ETH must be considered a likely explanation. You are tossing around personal opinions as if they are facts.

The COMETA report is probably the most definitive and comprehensive study that can be referenced. But even the authors and investigators of Bluebook argued much the same thing as the COMETA group. So the only two official studies we have lend support to the ET hypothesis.

Of course this ignores Project Grudge which also concluded much the same thing but was rejected by Vandenberg.

The standard response from alleged skeptics should be that no evidence short of proof can be considered. That is really the argument being made here.

 

[Magical Realist]

You don't know what the term "telluric electromagnetic field" means, do you? But hey, it sounds kinda scientific and all, and it supports the fantasy, so what the heck, eh?

Naw...why would I mention something that actually exists. lol!

"A telluric current (from Latin tellūs, "earth"), or Earth current,[1] is an electric current which moves underground or through the sea. Telluric currents result from both natural causes and human activity, and the discrete currents interact in a complex pattern. The currents are extremely low frequency and travel over large areas at or near the surface of the Earth."===https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telluric_current

The questions you should be asking are ones like the following:

• Are those thousands of eyewitnesses all reliable?

Certainly more reliable than a bunch of armchair debunkers who weren't there when they saw it.

• Could anything other than an alien craft possible char vegetation, or produce an appearance of charring?

I suppose little pink moon dragons could do it. But let's stick with the case itself and with what the facts of it show actually happened.

• 
  
• Are those strange residues really as strange as you believe they are?

Yep...pretty strange.

• Is there good evidence that those thousands of pilots saw alien spaceships, or did they see something else?

You mean was there a sign on the craft saying "We're aliens from outer space"? No..and truly objective students of the phenomena know not to conclude that.

• Is every unidentified radar blip an alien spaceship, or can other things cause blips on the radar?

No..but when they are seen AND detected on radar at the same time, this becomes compelling evidence for the existence of said craft.

• Can photos be faked? (You know of at least one clear example of fakery from this thread. Try applying this new-found knowledge to other cases.)

Can doctors be quacks? Sure. But that doesn't mean every doctor I go to must be a quack does it?

 

[James R]

And those telluric currents create aerial plasma forms ... how exactly?

 

[Magical Realist]

And those telluric currents create aerial plasma forms ... how exactly?

Not sure of the exact mechanism, but here's evidence that such is possible:

http://ufosightingshotspot.blogspot.com/2015/06/astronomers-discover-giant-plasma-tubes.html

 

[James R]

There's no mention of tulluric currents in the linked article, which in any case gives insufficient information to allow an understanding of what those "plasma tubes" are.

As usual, it seems you're grasping at any straw to try to bolster a pre-existing belief, MR.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Aren't film cameras still used for evidence sake?

 

[James R]

Magical Realist:

Certainly more reliable than a bunch of armchair debunkers who weren't there when they saw it.

If they saw it.

I suppose little pink moon dragons could do it.

Yeah. Or a guy with a box of matches.

But let's stick with the case itself and with what the facts of it show actually happened.

Establishing the "facts" of most of your examples is a big part of the problem. On the whole, the relevant evidence needed to do so is completely unavailable to the casual investigator.

You mean was there a sign on the craft saying "We're aliens from outer space"? No..and truly objective students of the phenomena know not to conclude that.

And yet, you have proven yourself willing to jump to the conclusion that a fairly obviously faked photo was legit, based on nothing more than a wish and a prayer. Does that make you truly objective?

No..but when they are seen AND detected on radar at the same time, this becomes compelling evidence for the existence of said craft.

Not at all. At a minimum, we would need to establish that what was reportedly seen was the same thing that was detected on radar. We would have to ensure the reliability of both the visual witnesses and the radar operators and equipment. We would have to identify possible mundane explanations and eliminate them before reaching for the extraordinary explanation.

Can doctors be quacks? Sure. But that doesn't mean every doctor I go to must be a quack does it?

No. But once you know some doctors are quacks, you would be well advised to take care to check whether the doctors you go to are appropriately qualified.