Magical Realist:
I know what he means. He knows what he means. Most everyone who reads his statement knows what he means. If you're still having trouble with it I suggest going back to english class and studying up on metaphors again.
Recall how this started. I said that he reported seeing something that
looked like a tic tac. You said, no no no, he said it
was a tic tac. Now, after further questioning from me, you've changed your tune, essentially to agree with what I said in the first place. The rest is just you whining.
Let's move on.
It's what they saw and what was spotted on radar and caught on camera.
It's what they say they saw. As for what was spotted on radar - if anything was - we have no idea what that was. As for the camera, it looks like a jet exhaust to me.
You didn't say it was a plane or a drone. You said it was a whale. You can't change your story whenever it suits you.
I don't have a story. You're the one telling the story about the alien spaceship, remember.
I suggested that the disturbance in the water might have been a whale or a submarine. That remains a live option.
Then why is there a "U" in UFO? Apparently, they have all been identified as "craft".
This is shown from hundreds of cases of them landing and having beings exit them.
Your attempts to distract from the discussion won't work. If you want to discuss supposed landings or alien sightings, that's an entirely different conversation. Of course, those are even less plausible than the one we're having.
Yeah we all know how you investigate. You google the latest skeptical debunk of the event and post that here as your own opinion.
I just told you: I've done virtually
no investigating here. Neither have you. You don't know what investigation is.
You might even refer to a video yourself if the video is providing a debunk, like of that explanation of the gimbal ufo really just being jet engine flare.
I posted a video that shows, quite plausibly, the origin of those fuzzy rotating "UFOs" on the IR gimbal cameras, explained by an expert.
If you deny that this explanation is plausible, go find your own experts.
Problem is these debunks aren't investigating anything.
Sure they are. They are investigating, for instance, the characteristics of the images typically produced by gimballed IR cameras. That information helps us to understand how certain images can be created by those cameras.
The alternative is to operate in a vacuum, where we know nothing about how the video footage was taken, so that we're left only to make dubious, ill-founded assumptions about what the footage shows. I know that's your preferred operating mode, but it's not what a competent critical thinker does.
They aren't interviewing eyewitnesses or people who were actually there.
Eyewitnesses has been interviewed many times by many different people, including skeptical investigators, as I previously pointed out.
They are only looking for excuses to dismiss the incident as a mistake or an outright hoax.
As I also pointed out, their motives are irrelevant, even if they have the motives you assume they have. What matters is whether the evidence for the LGM holds up or not. And it doesn't.
Sure it is, especially when the video provides actual interviews and video of the incident as in this one:
Apart from the interviews with people who were involved, that video includes virtually no actual footage from the incident. There is one short clip of IR footage from the planes, which may or may not be from the incident (there's no way to tell). The rest has a gigantic "RECREATION" message plastered over some imaginative animations that somebody created. It's all very well produced, but none of the recreated footage shows what was actually seen.
One interesting snippet I took away, though, was the fact that only
one radar picked up any UFOs - the radar on the ship. The fighter jets' radars showed
nothing at any time, even when the ship's radar was showing a "merge plot" - i.e. when the fighter jets should been in exactly the same position as the "UFO". The radar system on the ship was new. It had teething problems. Its software was being worked on. It showed many spurious tracks over many days prior to the incident. It's all highly suggestive of a computer glitch.
Joe Nickell is a career skeptic who makes his living trying to debunk everything.
Does he? Is he a full time debunker? Who pays him?
He writes for the Skeptical Inquirer.
And so? If he wrote for "UFO fan club" would you be more likely to believe him?
He is no more an expert than you are.
In other words, you're saying he is well informed and a competent investigator of these matters. Good.
All he does is look for possible alternative explanations for incidents in order to dismiss them as a mundane and unexceptional occurrences.
Something that
everybody should be doing. You never bother, though. Why is that? Afraid of what you might find?
You don't want to, you mean.