Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
So why do you insinuate that it is anything more?
Where did I insinuate that? Quote it.
Portage County/Ravenna UFO chase 1966
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Where did I insinuate that? Quote it.
My mistake, happily.
So nice to see you finally agree that those small percentages of alleged sightings, at best remain unidentified.
I knew we'd eventually get you round to accepting science and the scientific methodology MR.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
My mistake, happily.
So nice to see you finally agree that those small percentages of alleged sightings, at best remain unidentified.
I knew we'd eventually get you round to accepting science and the scientific methodology MR.
Right..ufos being defined as aerial objects often disc or oval shaped and metallic by day and illuminated by night that outperform any known manmade craft, appear and disappear, shoot beams of light disabling car engines and air craft control panels, and sometimes land in fields leaving burnt vegetation, radiation effects, and depressions in the soil.
right. possibly a makeup of trickery, illusions, delusions, coincidences, vivid imaginations, atmospheric disturbances and anomalies, astronomical objects and refraction/reflection of light, magnetic disturbances, secret military weapon technology, etc
well done MR!
Last edited:
The case above was not a UFO, then, by that definition.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Yes it was. It was an oval shaped illuminated craft that outpaced speeding patrol cars and had a beam of light shining down out of it. That's definitely a UFO.
I agree with you MR...Most certainly 100% a UFO!
I 've seen one also.
It is annoying when something so strange remains Unidentified!
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Could it have been a flock of birds as so often it is a flock of birds that causes reports of UFO sightings.
Alex
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
In any event it is a very old report so may as well be discarded.
Probably birds.
Alex
Probably birds.
Alex
I thought you said it had to "outperform any known manmade craft". There's no evidence it did that. Merely outrunning a police car is not sufficient, according to your definition.
It did not appear or disappear. It did not shoot beams of light that disabled car engined. It did not disable any air craft control panels. It did not land in any field or leave burnt vegetation. There were no recorded radiation effect, nor any depressions in the soil.
Basically, this was a light in the sky. That's all.
Of course, if you want to revise your own definition of "UFO" to include just unidentified lights in the sky, that's OK. I was just pointing out that by your own definition above, this was no UFO. But then, your definition above is far more strict that the usual definition of UFO, which is literally just any "unidentified flying object".
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Yep..just a big old oval shaped light in the sky that sped along a highway for 50 miles while patrol cars chased it. No ufo here folks! lol! Like I said, you just can't argue away this amazing event. Or the thousands of other sightings of ufos over the past 70 years.
Last edited:
So unexplained and unidentified, which means also that it possibly may have been a result of trickery, illusions, delusions, coincidences, vivid imaginations, atmospheric disturbances and anomalies, astronomical objects and refraction/reflection of light, magnetic disturbances, secret military weapon technology, etc.
Bells
Staff member
You seem to forget that being unidentified means nothing at all. It is just that, something unidentified. Nothing more and nothing less. Jumping to conclusions with weird insinuations is just silly. It was unidentified and it could have been anything, from a helicopter (with reports of the police officers saying there was a vertical protrusion behind it sure points to a helicopter) to a sort of weather balloon or anything really. You seem to be insinuating that a UFO is something else entirely, which would entail it not being a UFO.
In other words, by identifying it as something, it can no longer be a UFO.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
LOL! Uh no. Here's the definition Wikipedia gives of a UFO:
"An unidentified flying object, or UFO, in its most general definition, is any apparent anomaly in the sky that is not identifiable as a known object or phenomenon."---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object
That means it wasn't a glowing weather balloon speeding above a freeway at 100 mph or a helicopter (it was elliptical and made a gentle humming noise) or a satellite or the planet Venus or anything else you wanna make up. It was a UFO, of which there are thousands of sightings all over the world and which show the same basic characteristics over and over again, some of which I listed in post #179. Ofcourse we all know this, so why am I even pointing it out again? You can't semantically handwave away a real phenomenon.
Last edited:
Please note, in your own definition, "in its most general definition, is any apparent anomaly in the sky that is not identifiable as a known object or phenomenon."
What that is inferring is that people will automatically assume its a "flying saucer" out of habit, convenience and simply convention.
That in any language, particularly in the scientific aspect, does not take away from the "U" or "Unidentified" part., despite how much you feel the need to obfuscate.
Which means in reality, and in the real world, it may simply be a result of trickery, illusions, delusions, coincidences, vivid imaginations, atmospheric disturbances and anomalies, astronomical objects and refraction/reflection of light, magnetic disturbances, secret military weapon technology, etc.
You need to live with that.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Nope..a UFO is by definition NOT a known object or phenomenon. So that rules out your little list there right away.................. lol! a magic trick....
No, not really MR: A UFO by definition is an unknown object....simple as that.Nope..a UFO is by definition NOT a known object or phenomenon. So that rules out your little list there right away.................. lol! a magic trick....
It's only the gullible and impressionable, that have a desire for awe, mystery, paranormal etc, that then grab the chance of pinning it with "flying saucer" or somehow alien controlled.
Bells
Staff member
Which is exactly what I said. It was something they have not been able to identify. Ergo, it was unidentified.
You are insinuating that it is something identified, that you know what it is, that it is something not of this world and somehow alien. But you do not know what it is. You cannot know what it is. So it is unidentified. But you are insinuating that it is something that has been identified, while arguing that it is a UFO. Are you attributing an alien space craft (through various insinuations) to a UFO, without knowing what it is? Because if you are, it can no longer be deemed a UFO because you have identified it, so by its very nature, it cannot be a UFO, but something that has been identified.
What it means is that no one knows what it is. Ergo, it is a UFO, an "unidentified flying object". So by that definition, it could be anything, including a helicopter or a weather balloon but cannot be clearly identified as such.
Understand now?
If you are identifying it as something, such as an alien space craft, then it is no longer a UFO, because it has been identified as such.
So your comment in post 179:
Means what?
That this is something that has been identified? But it hasn't been identified. You yourself keep demanding it is a UFO, but you keep arguing as though the UFO has been identified, which means it is not a UFO. By demanding it is a UFO, then it also stands to reason that it could very well be a helicopter or weather balloon, Venus or anything really, even an alien space craft, but with no proof that it is any of these things, it remains a UFO, an "unidentified flying object". Unless of course you are arguing that it is an alien space craft, which would mean you cannot keep labeling it a UFO by the very definition you provided. Because if you are arguing that it is an alien space craft of some sort, it cannot be a UFO because it has been identified. But again, it hasn't been identified, so you cannot argue that it is anything in particular, because you do not know what it is.
When you argue about what it is based on your own beliefs, you are attempting to define or label or most importantly, identify what it is, when the very people who saw it argued that they could not identify it. Which begs the question, why are you attempting to identify or label a UFO when you are in no position to do so?
So it makes no sense for you to claim it is something that you know, while still calling it a "UFO". Because a UFO by its very definition means it has not been identified.
In other words, you cannot keep calling it a UFO - which is an "unidentified flying object" - while demanding that is has to be an object or something that is identified. It isn't.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
No..I already told you the definition of UFO. It is an anomaly not identifiable as a known object or phenomena. Therefore it is a UFO. Is it alien? We don't know. Could be. Is it some unknown form of living energy? We don't know. It could be. Is it humans time traveling from the future? We don't know. Could be. What it is NOT is something known like a weather balloon or a helicopter or the planet Venus or any of the known shit you keep making up. It is NOT any of those because none of those fit the descriptions. It is simply a UFO. Are you comprehending this now? Good. Then quit posting to me. I tire quickly of correcting your rambling repetitious errors.
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
It is unidentified, which means it could be something as mundane as a helicopter or weather balloon. The very notion of being unidentified means that it could be anything at all. Which makes no sense to see you argue that it cannot be something mundane like a helicopter, while demanding it is a UFO and arguing as though you have identified it...
If it is a UFO, then it can be anything MR, including a helicopter or weather balloon. It makes no sense to argue that it is a UFO and then dismiss everything because it does not fit into what have clearly identified it as being.
So is it a UFO - which opens it up to being anything at all, including something like a helicopter? Or not? If you argue that it cannot be a helicopter or weather balloon or satellite, which is what the authorities identified it as being, then it means it is not a UFO..
If you call it a UFO, it means accepting that it is merely unidentified which could mean that it could be anything at all, including a helicopter or weather balloon or any other thing or object. Something unknown. You cannot call it a UFO and then demand that it cannot be certain things. That fails to fit the profile or definition of a UFO. So it makes no sense for you to keep arguing it is a UFO while demanding it cannot be certain types of aircraft or object..